Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 9 September, 2010

Author: K.C.Puri

Bench: K.C.Puri

Crl. Misc. No. M.20860 of 2010                                 1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND                             HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH



                                       Crl. Misc. No. M.20860 of 2010.
                                       Date of decision 9.09.2010.

Surinder Kumar
                                       ...... Petitioner.

  versus


State of Punjab
                                       ...... Respondent.


CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.



Present :    Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner.


K.C.PURI, J.

Surinder Kumar has filed petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure P-15) and charge sheet dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure P-16) on the ground that the same has been passed by the Court below without considering the report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

The only legal point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court has not considered the report under Section under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., while framing the charge against the petitioner. It is contended that the police cannot be stopped from making further investigation even after the presentation of the challan against the accused. In the present case, after presentation of the challan against the Crl. Misc. No. M.20860 of 2010 2 accused the police submitted supplementary challan under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and trial Court has not considered that report on the ground that the same has been submitted during the pendency of the chlalan. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has cited following authorities :-

(1) Hasanbhai Vallbhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat and ors. 2004(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 463 ; (2) Vikas Gupta vs. State of Punjab 2002(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 12 ;

(3) Charanjit Singh @ Bittu vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 748 ; (4) Reeta Nag vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

2009(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 207 ;

(5) State of A.P. vs. A.S.Peter 2008(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 131 ;

(6) Rama Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar.

2009 (2) Criminal Court Cases 721 ;

(7) Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar and ors. 2009 (2) Criminal Court Cases 442.

It has been laid down in the aforesaid authorities that the police can make further investigation without the prior permission of the Court and the trial Court should have taken into account the report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

I have carefully considered the said submissions and have gone through the records of the case.

So far as the proposition of law laid down by the learned counsel for the petitioner as enunciated in authorities Hasanbhai Vallbhai Qureshi's case (super), Vikas Gupta's case (supra) ; Charanjit Singh @ Bittu's case (super) ; Reeta Nag 's case ( super); State of A.P. vs. A.S.Peter Rama Chaudhary's case (super) and Rukmini Narvekar's case (super) that police can make further investigation even after presentation of challan is concerned, there is no dispute with the said proposition of law. The question here is that after the presentation of supplementary challan under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., whether the Court is bound to accept the same. The answer to that question is in negative. The authority Charanjit Singh @ Bittu's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the complete answer to that question. In that authority it has been held that police can further investigate the case even after presentation of challan. However, it is for the Court to decide whether there is sufficient evidence for trial against the accused. In the present case, the trial Court has returned the finding that prima facie offence punishable under Sections 452, 380 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused including the petitioner.

So, in these circumstances, I see no illegality in the order for framing the charges against the petitioner. At the stage of framing charge whatever material is before the Court has to be looked into. The report of the police under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C can be rejected by the trial Court in case it comes to the conclusion that prima facie case for framing charge is made out.

So, in these circumstances, no case for interference in the order of framing the charge is made out.

Consequently, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.

                                                     ( K.C.PURI )
                                                        JUDGE
September 09,       2010

sv