Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarbjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 27 January, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-26624 of 2009
Date of decision : 27.1.2010
Sarbjit Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.M.S.Bedi, Sr.Advocate with
Ms.Gauri Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.K.S.Boparai, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Sabina J.
Petitioner-Sarbjit Singh has filed this petition under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.) for quashing the order of
charge and charge sheet dated 4.3.2009 (Annexure P-1) collectively of the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Phul and the order dated 8.8.2009
(Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Bathinda.
Facts of the case in brief as noticed by the learned Sessions Judge
in paragraph 2 of its judgment reads as under:-
"Facts of the case relevant for the purpose of the present revision are that as per statement of Prem Kumar recorded by the police, forming the basis of First Information Report, SI Sarabjit Singh ex.SHO, Police Station, Dialpura had registered a false case against the complainant. On 8.2.2006, complainant had gone to Bathinda to obtain bail. SI Sarabjit Singh accompanied by the police officials, visited the house of the complainant. He used foul language to the ladies present in the house. Therefore, he went to Ganesh Rice Mill, Bhata Bhai Ka of the complainant, whose I.Q. (intelligence quotient) is low and cannot run, was present. S.I. Sarabjit Singh caught hold him and beat him up. He was put in the jeep and taken to the brick kiln of the complainant.Crl.Misc.No.M-26624 of 2009 2
Thereafter, he was again beaten up and abused. Gurmit Rai partner of the sheller and Sukhdev Singh son of Bachan Singh, who were present at the brick kiln asked Sukhdev Singhto free Vinod Kumar, but he took Vinod Kumar to Police Station where he was again beaten up and thereafter on 8.2.2006 at 8:00 p.m., Vinod Kumar was thrown at the brick kiln of complainant. On 9.2.2006 Vinod was got admitted in Civil Hospital, Bathidna from where he was referred to Dr.Jagmal Neuro Centre, Bathinda. According to the complainant, be brought to the incident to the notice of high police officers but no action was taken. He also filed petition before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that occurrence in this case had allegedly taken place on 8.2.2006 and FIR was registered on 10.4.2007 and challan was presented on 14.9.2007 and charges were framed on 4.3.2009. As per the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the trial Court could not take cognizance as the matter as it was beyond limitation.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand has submitted that with great difficulty, respondent No.2 had been successful in getting FIR registered against the petitioner who was a police official and thereafter, the challan had been presented deliberately by the Investigating Agency after delay. Respondent No.2 was medically examined on 9.2.2006.
There is no dispute regarding the fact that occurrence in this case had taken place on 8.2.2006 and FIR was registered on 10.4.2007. Admittedly, the challan was presented in the Court on 14.9.2007 and charge has been framed against the petitioner on 4.3.2009 vide Annexure P-1.
In the present case, respondent No.2 had filed Crl.Misc.No.72749 M of 2006 for direction to the respondents to investigate the case and register the FIR. In the said petition, the following order was passed by this Court on 7.3.2007:-
Crl.Misc.No.M-26624 of 2009 3
"Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate Mr.M.C.Berry, Sr.DAG,Punjab.
The perusal of the reply filed in this case would show that SHO Respondent No.3 has been found blame worthy and transferred. It is also disclosed that further action is being taken against the said SHO. Counsel for the petitioner points out that this case is a case where the said SHO had caused 14 injuries to a handicapped person. Indication given with reply is that only departmental action is being taken against the said SHO, though he is responsible for this criminal misconduct, and accordingly case is required to be registered against him.
State should place on record the response in this regard by 2.5.2007."
Thus, it is apparent that in the present case, FIR was not being registered and respondent No.2 was forced to approach this Court seeking redressal of his grievance and thereafter, FIR in question was registered. Respondent No.2 had been prosecuting his case with due diligence but the Investigating Agency was not cooperating and thus resulted in delay. There is no doubt that as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., the period of limitation shall be one year, if the offence is punishable for imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year, for taking cognizance of the offence. However, each case has to be viewed in view of its own facts. In the present case, it appears that the delay had been caused by the investigating agency to help the petitioner who was a police official. After presentation of challan, efforts were made to secure the presence of the petitioner. However, the petitioner surrendered before the Magistrate on 3.11.2008 and thereafter, the petitioner sought exemption from appearance before the Magistrate on many dates Respondent No.2 has placed on record certified copy of various interim orders passed by the trial Court.
Crl.Misc.No.M-26624 of 2009 4
A perusal of the interim order dated 9.1.2009, the co-accused Sadhu Singh absented on 9.1.2009 and surrendered on 10.2.2009 and was released on bail on 13.2.2009.
In these circumstances, respondent No.2 cannot be made to suffer for the delay having been precipitated by the petitioner. No ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
[ Sabina ] Judge 27.1.2010 sd