Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh @ Bittu Chawla And Another vs State Of Punjab on 27 August, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRR No. 1660 of 2006 (O&M) etc. 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 27.8.2012
Crl.Revision No.1660 of 2006 (O&M)
Jagjit Singh @ Bittu Chawla and another
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
Crl.Misc. No.M- 31144 of 2008 (O&M)
Jagjit Singh @ Bittu Chawla and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
Crl.Misc. No.M- 16144 of 2010 (O&M)
Jagjit Singh @ Bittu Chawla and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
Crl.Misc. No.M- 36769 of 2010 (O&M)
Jagjit Singh @ Bittu Chawla and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CRR No. 1660 of 2006 (O&M) etc. 2
Crl.Misc. No.M- 5931 of 2012 (O&M)
Jagjit Singh @ Bittu Chawla and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate,
Mr.D.S.Mulwai, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.Rahul Bhargawa, Advocate for
Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate,
for applicants.
Mr.D.P.S.Kahlon, Advocate,
for respondent No.6.
****
SABINA, J.
Vide this order the above mentioned five petitions would be disposed of.
Crl.Revision No.1660 of 2006 under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) has been filed for setting aside impugned order dated 1.3.2006, whereby, charge under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act) has been framed against the petitioners in FIR No.168 dated 24.4.2004 under Sections 7, 12, 13 of the Act, registered at police station Division No.6, Ludhiana .
CRR No. 1660 of 2006 (O&M) etc. 3
Crl.Misc. No.M- 31144 of 2010 has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking protection of the life and liberty of the petitioners .
Crl.Misc. No.M- 16144 of 2010 has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking fair and proper investigation by CBI in case FIR No.134 dated 2.8.2009 under Sections 409/ 166/ 167/ 120- B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana.
Crl.Misc. No.M- 36769 of 2010 has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to provide adequate security to the petitioners for protection of their life and liberty.
Crl.Misc. No.M- 5931 of 2012 has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 not to implicate the petitioners in a false case and to protect their life and liberty.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were whistle blowers qua the serious offences committed by the police officials. Petitioners had unveiled the corruption committed by the official accused. Due to this reason, petitioners had been involved in various criminal cases and had been arrayed as accused in the FIRs. Although the petitioners had reported the matter to the police but FIR No.168 dated 24.4.2004 under Sections 7, 12, 13 of the Act was registered at police station Division No.6, Ludhiana stating therein that it was on the basis of a CRR No. 1660 of 2006 (O&M) etc. 4 secret information. It was alleged that the petitioners had abetted the commission of offence of acceptance of bribe by the officials. The criminal proceedings against the petitioners were nothing but an abuse of process of law. Petitioners were apprehending danger to their life and liberty.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioners were earlier also facing criminal cases. They had been convicted in some cases. In these circumstances, the allegations levelled by the petitioners that they were being falsely involved in numerous criminal cases after the registration of present FIR was without any basis. Learned State counsel has further submitted that after due investigation of the case, challan had been presented in the Court. The trial Court, after appreciating the entire material on record, had ordered framing of the charge against petitioners under Section 12 of the Act in FIR No.168 dated 24.4.2004 under Sections 7, 12, 13 of the Act, registered at police station Division No.6, Ludhiana. Departmental action had also been initiated against the erring police officials.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that all the petitions deserve to be dismissed.
In the present case, FIR No.168 dated 24.4.2004 under Sections 7, 12, 13 of the Act was registered at police station Division No.6, Ludhiana on the basis of a secret information. Although learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact, the petitioners had got the said FIR registered yet the same had been CRR No. 1660 of 2006 (O&M) etc. 5 recorded on the basis of secret information but the said fact cannot be decided by this Court.
Thus, as per the prosecution case, FIR No.168 dated 24.4.2004 under Sections 7, 12, 13 of the Act was registered at police station Division No.6, Ludhiana on the basis of a secret information that the accused were doing the business of dara satta in the garb of sale of lottery tickets. After thorough investigation of the case, challan was presented against the petitioners and their co- accused. The trial Court has observed that in the video recordings, it was seen that the petitioners were giving cash amount to the police officials. Whether the video recordings had been got effected by the petitioners or not would be established during trial.
Learned State counsel has placed on record list of criminal cases registered against the petitioners. As per the same petitioners Jagjit Singh @ Bittu Chawla and Subhash Chander @ Katty were involved in following criminal cases before registration of FIR No.168 dated 24.4.2004 under Sections 7, 12, 13 of the Act, at police station Division No.6, Ludhiana :-
"1. Petitioners had faced trial in FIR No.232 dated 18.6.1989 under Section 61 of the Excise Act, registered at Police station Divn. No.6, Ludhiana and on the basis of their confession, they were sentenced to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- each vide judgment/ order dated 23.12.1989.
2. Petitioners had also faced trial in FIR No.118 dated 9.7.1993 under Section 13-A of the Gambling Act, Police CRR No. 1660 of 2006 (O&M) etc. 6 station Sadar Ludhiana and were acquitted by the trial Court.
3. Petitioners had also faced trial in FIR No.159 dated 11.7.1996 under Sections 324/ 34, 326/ 120-B IPC, Police station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana and were acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 8.1.1998 on the basis of compromise.
4.Petitioners had also faced trial in FIR No.116 dated 3.2.1998 under Section 153-A IPC, Police station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana and were acquitted by the trial Court.
5. Petitioners had also faced trial in FIR No.21 dated 18.1.1999 under Sections 384, 506, 120-B IPC, Police station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana and were acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 30.8.2005.
6. FIR No.132 dated 14.5.1999 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 382, 380, 456, 506, 148, 149 IPC, Police station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana.
7. In FIR No.454 dated 5.11.2001 under Section 13 of the Gambling Act and 420 IPC, Police station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana, petitioners were acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 25.9.2007.
8. In FIR No.144 dated 22.5.2001 under Section 382, 506, 325 IPC, Police station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana, petitioners were sentenced to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- each vide judgment dated 21.9.2004.CRR No. 1660 of 2006 (O&M) etc. 7
9. In FIR No.41 dated 12.6.2001 under Section 302 IPC, Police station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana, petitioners were acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 10.11.2008.
10. In FIR No.67 dated 13.2.2003 under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, Police station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana, petitioners were sentenced to pay a fine of ` 500/- each vide judgment dated 4.12.2006.
11. FIR No.68 dated 13.2.2003 under Sections 353, 186 IPC, Police station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana registered against the petitioners is pending in the trial Court.
12. In FIR No.221 dated 6.6.2003 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana registered against the petitioners.
13. In FIR No.245 dated 6.6.2003 under Sections 452, 324, 323, 34 IPC and 3/ 4/ 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police station Haibowal Ludhiana, petitioners were acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 12.3.2008.
14. In FIR No.258 dated 20.10.2000 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana, petitioners, were acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 13.9.2003.
15. FIR No.228 dated 31.2.2001 under Section 13-A of CRR No. 1660 of 2006 (O&M) etc. 8 the Gambling Act, Police station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana, registered against the petitioners was decided in Lok Adalat on 16.7.2002 and untraced report has been sent.
16. In FIR No.143 dated 10.4.2003 under Section 13-A of the Gambling Act, Police station Divn.No.6, Ludhiana, petitioners were acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 24.1.2008.
Thus, petitioners Jagjit Singh @ Bittu Chawla and Subhash Chander @ Katty were facing number of criminal cases before registration of FIR No.168 dated 24.4.2004 under Sections 7, 12, 13 of the Act at police station Division No.6, Ludhiana. In some cases, they were convicted and in some cases, they were acquitted by the trial Court. In some cases, the petitioners were acquitted on the basis of compromise. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners were having a clean record and had never been involved in any criminal case.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it would not be just and expedient to quash FIR No.168 dated 24.4.2004 under Sections 7, 12, 13 of the Act, registered at police station Division No.6, Ludhiana and the order dated 1.3.2006, whereby, charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioners under Section 12 of the Act. Challan has been presented in the FIR in question after due investigation and charge has been framed against the petitioners under Section 12 of the Act. The petitioners would be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to them during trial at the appropriate CRR No. 1660 of 2006 (O&M) etc. 9 stage.
Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 1660 of 2006 is dismissed.
The other petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking protection of their life and liberty; direction to the police to conduct fair investigation and for a direction to the police not to implicate them in false cases.
In view of above discussion, no ground for interference in the said petitions also is made out.
Accordingly, Crl.Misc. No.M- 31144 of 2008, Crl.Misc. No.M- 16144 of 2010, Crl.Misc. No.M- 36769 of 2010 and Crl.Misc. No.M- 5931 of 2012 are dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 27, 2012 anita