CRM No.M-22730 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-12.10.2010 Sarwan Singh son of Wassan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Sarabjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The symposium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy raised in the present petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, in the wake of statement of complainant-Sampuran Singh (respondent No.4), the present case was registered against petitioner Sarwan Singh and his co-accused Sukhdev Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, Tarsem Singh son of Wassan Singh, Paramjit Singh son of Sikattar Singh, Wassan Singh son of Harnam Singh and Dilbag Singh son of Kashmir Singh, vide FIR No.136 dated 6.12.2009 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 427 and 447 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Verowal, Distt.Tarn Taran. 2. What is not disputed here is that during the course of investigation, the petitioner was found innocent and police did not send him for trial. At the same time, after the completion of the investigation, the final police report/challan (Annexure P3) was submitted against the remaining accused to face the trial for the commission of indicated offences. The investigation was approved and verified by the concerned DSP. CRM No.M-22730 of 2010 2 3. During the pendency of the trial of the case, one fine morning, without obtaining prior approval of the trial Magistrate, as per law, another DSP Sub Division, Tarn Taran recorded the statements of some witnesses of his own accord, prepared and produced the inquiry report (Annexure P6) for necessary orders, again involving the petitioner in the commission of crime. The petitioner apprehends that on the basis of the indicated impugned report, the police is illegally trying to file a supplementary challan against him. 4. Petitioner Sarwan Singh, who is now residing abroad, did not feel satisfied and filed the present petition for quashing the second inquiry report (Annexure P6), by invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that the case was duly investigated and on the basis of material on record, the petitioner was found innocent by the Investigating Agency and final police report (Annexure P3) as contemplated under section 173 Cr.PC was submitted against the remaining accused for their trial in the trial court. It is not a matter of dispute that the then concerned DSP approved and verified the investigation. Once the final police report has been so presented and the trial Court is seized of the matter, then the police becomes functus officio as regards the investigation of the case is concerned, except the exercise of power by the officer in charge of the police station, as envisaged under section 173 (8) Cr.PC or by the trial Magistrate as escalated under section 319 Cr.PC in this relevant connection. 7. Section 319 Cr.PC postulates that “where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be CRM No.M-22730 of 2010 3 tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.” A co-joint reading of these provisions would reveal that once the trial Court is seized of the case, then the second DSP did not have the jurisdiction to re-enquire into the same matter of its own wish, completely bypassing the mandatory provisions of law. He cannot legally be permitted to initiate parallel proceedings, otherwise there will be no end of the litigation in this respect. 8. Thus, seen from any angle, as the second report (Annexure P6) of DSP did not have the legal sanctity, therefore, it cannot possibly be implemented and it is liable to be quashed, being illegal and without jurisdiction. 9. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the second inquiry report (Annexure P6) is hereby quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. Needless to say that if it appears from the evidence to the trial Court that the petitioner is involved in the case in any manner, then it may exercise its jurisdiction as provided under section 319 Cr.PC in accordance with law. 12.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge