Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 3 August, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-17255 of 2011 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-17255 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.08.2012
Sukhwinder Singh and others
.....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: - Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.
*****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been filed for quashing order framing charge dated 21.7.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon, and order dated 8.4.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in case FIR No.48 dated 25.5.2008 under Sections 420/120-B/147/149/171-E and 171-H IPC (Sections 420/120-B/147/149 IPC deleted later on), registered at Police Station Sudhar, District Ludhiana (R).
Brief facts of the present case are that initially FIR under Sections 420/120-B/147/149/171-E and 171-H IPC was registered and subsequently Sections 420/120-B/147/149 IPC were deleted. The case survived with regard to Sections 171-E and 171-H IPC. The said offences are non-cognizable. Even if in such circumstances an FIR is registered, only complaint can be filed under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the challan was presented as a complaint by the police under Section 171-E and 171-H IPC. The Magistrate summoned the petitioners but straightway framed the charge without following the procedure under the provisions of the complaint case i.e. Section 202 Cr.P.C. Before framing the charge, pre-charge evidence was required to be led as per provisions of Crl. Misc. No. M-17255 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the Cr.P.C. In the present case, admittedly, no pre-charge evidence has been recorded. This fact has not been denied by learned State counsel.
In view of the above, there is a basic infirmity with regard to the fact that without looking at the evidence, charge has been framed. Furthermore, even no opportunity to cross-examine the pre-charge witness has been afforded to the petitioners, which has prejudiced the rights of the petitioners. Keeping in view the above, the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (Annexure P-4) is not sustainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Annexure P-5) has not dealt with the issue of framing of charge in due practice and even has not discussed the procedure to be followed in cases of non-cognizable offences when the police submits challan as a complaint. In these circumstances, order of learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot survive.
In view of above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.7.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and order dated 8.4.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge are quashed. However, learned trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, is directed to proceed afresh from the stage of pre-charge evidence and pass appropriate order.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge August 03, 2012 R.S.