Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmal Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab on 4 April, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRL. MISC. No.M-40589 OF 2013
DATE OF DECISION : 4th APRIL, 2014
Nirmal Singh & others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. SURINDER GUPTA
****
Present : Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
****
SURIDNER GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of the FIR No.131 dated 31.05.1994 (Annexure P-1) registered for offence punishable under Section 7 of Essential commodities Act, at Police Station Sadar Patiala, District Patiala.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the untraced report was prepared in this case on 18.05.1995 but was not filed in the Court. The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act and was informed that the untraced report is yet to be accepted. However, due to mistake it is mentioned in the petition that the untraced report was filed in Court. The perusal of order dated 21.03.2014 passed by Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patiala shows that untraced report in this case has been prepared and entered at Sr. No.1761/5A/95 dated 10.06.1995 but it neither reached the court, nor could be traced in police station.
CRL. MISC. No.M-40589 OF 2013 -2- The averments in the affidavit of Hardial Singh Mann, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala makes the facts clear. The relevant portion of affidavit is reproduced as follows:
'7. That on receipt of report from SHO as well as from DSP(R), Patiala, the deponent passed an order holding departmental enquiry against SI Subeg Singh and after reconstructing the file, the untraced report be filed in the concerned court, since after a lapse of about 20 years, no useful purpose could be served by investigating the case as limitation Act will also bar filing the charge sheet.
8. That after constructing the file, untraced report was filed in the court in the present case on 10.03.2014.' It has been submitted that after filing of untraced report on 10.03.2014, the Court sent notice to complainant who appeared before the Court but was not inclined to accept the untraced report and the Court has sent the matter for re-investigation.
Learned State counsel submits that the departmental proceedings against the concerned SI Subeg Singh is also pending for dereliction in the performance of duty. The facts of this case reflect that there is no mechanism with the District Authorities of the Police to have a check on such type of cases. It is quite strange that no further action in FIR No.131 dated 31.05.1994 was taken after untraced report was prepared in the year 1995. This case escaped the attention and scrutiny of the District Authorities.
CRL. MISC. No.M-40589 OF 2013 -3- Pendency of an FIR against a person is always a circumstances adverse to his interest because he has to quote the pendency of the FIR everywhere when he has to deal with the Government or any authority or even while applying for passport etc. The petitioners have unnecessarily suffered for the last about two decades for the slackness on the part of the Police Authorities of Patiala. Even if the untraced report submitted now has been sent for re-investigation, keeping in view the above facts, I find no reason to keep this case pending. As such, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.
4th April, 2014 (SURINDER GUPTA)
'raj' JUDGE
Raj Kumar
2014.04.21 12:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh