Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pankaj vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 October, 2012
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-32822-2012 (O&M).
Date of decision: October 17, 2012.
Pankaj
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
PRESENT Mr.Pankaj Bali, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner is an accused in FIR No.129 dated 10.6.2012 under Sections 323, 341 & 506/34 IPC (under Sections 325, 307 & 364 added later on) and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Kunjpura, Karnal. The said FIR was registered at the instance of Arjun Singh complainant.Grievance of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated as he is real nephew of Surinder Kumar present Sarpanch of village Kalwehri and on account of political grudge of Arjun Singh, supporter of the opposite party. It is claimed that neither the petitioner was present on the spot nor he committed any offence. Petitioner seeks a direction for fair and independent investigation by CIA or any other Investigating Agency.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is an accused who claims to have been falsely implicated. The petitioner apprehends that on account of influence of complainant-respondent No.4 on the Investigating Agency, he will not be treated fairly.
It is admitted position that till date challan has not been presented and the matter is still under investigation. It is settled principle of law that in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a direction for fair investigation can be issued in case there is a violation of the statutory provisions in the Court of investigation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the persons who are aware of the actual facts are not being joined in the investigation.
A reference can be made to 2012 (1) Criminal Court cases 437, State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pak Singh Bhullar and others, wherein it was observed that under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,, though a Court cannot direct a particular agency to investigate the matter or to investigate the case on a particular or by cr.P.c.
The said powers can be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any law. A High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has got power to issue appropriate direction but High Court cannot direct police as to how investigate but can in considered only for observations of process as provided in Criminal Procedure Code. Since in the present case, the investigation as per the provisions of Chapter XII, is still under process, a direction can be given to the Investigating Agency to follow the statutory provisions. During the course of investigation, as per the provisions of Section 163 (2) Cr.P.C., no police officer shall prevent by any action otherwise any person from making any in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C., any statement which he may be disposed to make of his own free will.
In view of said circumstances, a direction is issued that statements of all the persons on their own free will during the course of investigation for their statement , the Investigating Officer will record the said statements and take into consideration the same before forming an opinion to prosecute the petitioner by presenting report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. The persons who have submitted affidavits Annexures P-3 colly may appear before the Investigating Officer and get their statements recorded to be taken into consideration at the time of presentation of challan.
In view of above circumstances, this petiton for referringtyhe matter to any the Investigating Agency is dismissed. However, a direction is given to the the Investigating Agency to follow the procedure under Chapter XII fairly especially provisions of Section 163 (2) Cr.P.C.
Disposed of.
Petitioner has been in custody w.e.f., 18.5.2012 for having been found in possession of 500 tablets of phenotil, 20 Capsules of Parvon Spas and 50 tablets of Carrisol.
The trial is likely to take a long time.
The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial subject to the condition that he will not commit the similar offence of which he is accused of during pendency of the trial.
(M.M.S. BEDI) October 12, 2012. JUDGE rka