Criminal Misc. No.M-23617 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-23617 of 2008
Date of decision : 3.12.2008
Paramjit Singh …..Petitioner
State of Punjab and another …Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. Vikas Mahsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
Mr. I.S.Pabla, Advocate for
Mr. P.S. Sullar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The controversy is very simple in character. The prosecution filed a plea under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the summoning of respondent no.2-Gurdev Kaur to face a trial under Section 420/120-B IPC. In support of the request, the prosecution relied upon the averments made in course of the complaint, First Information Report and also the substantive testimony made by the complainant before the Trial Court on 20.10.2006.
The plea came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned
order dated 301.2007.
However, that order was invalidated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), vide order dated 20.9.2007. In recording that finding the learned Revisional Court placed reliance upon the fact that respondent no.2-Gurdev Kaur had been found innocent by the Investigating Agency. In that context, learned Revisional Court recorded the following observations:-
“The interest of such like private complainants are always subject to interest of the State which are larger. Investigating Agency is headed by State and some sanctity of truth is attached to State Investigating Agency established when there is Senior Police Officer so it cannot be mechanically accepted that every investigation is doubtful as in this case there is no evidence to doubt separating of the chaff from grain of truth for that the facts brought to light by Superior Officer also has to be believed until and unless some main accused is allowed for go scot free some ulterior motive of the police so such like mini trial and stalling the main trial should be discouraged by the trial court.”
The complainant has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order dated 20.9.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Pariala.
I have heard Mr. Vikas Mahsempuri, learned counsel for the petitioner for the petitioner, Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. I.S.Pabla, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
It would be apparent from a perusal of the impugned order itself that allowance of the plea under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was based upon the substantive testimony of the complainant which she had made at the trial. Learned Trial Magistrate recorded a well reasoned order indicating in the course thereof that he was allowing the said plea on the basis of contents of the complaint, First Information Report and also substantive testimony of the complainant at the trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in discarding the well reasoned observations made by the learned Trial Magistrate.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge was also not justified in placing implicit reliance upon the finding of ‘exoneration’ recorded by the Investigating Agency in favour of respondent no.2-Gurdev Kaur. The finding by the Investigating Agency cannot be given priority over the finding recorded by a Judicial Court. That is the crux of the issue.
In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The order dated 20.9.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge shall stand quashed. The order dated 30.1.2007 passed by learned Trial Magistrate is restored.
December 03, 2008 (S. D. ANAND)