Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lalit Bhatia vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 October, 2010
Author: Mukul Mudgal
Bench: Mukul Mudgal
CWP No. 3365 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 3365 of 2008
Date of Decision: 28.10.2010
Lalit Bhatia ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present : Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Addl. A.G. Punjab
for respondent No.1.
Mr. H.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
****
MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J.(Oral)
1. The present petition purported to have been filed as P.I.L. is for the grant of following reliefs:-
i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order of learned C.J.M. Ropar dated 23.12.2004 (Annexure P-5A) and consequent directions to the respondents to present charge-sheet against all the accused in the jurisdictional Court on the basis of the directions of the DGP, Punjab, dated 7.8.2003 to S.S.P. Ropar.
ii) Issue an appropriate directions for a detailed inquiry/investigation by an independent agency into CWP No. 3365 of 2008 [2] the entire gamut of cancellation of the criminal case in FIR No. 232, P.S. Sadar Ropar by various authorities, so that both disciplinary and legal action under the penal code, against the then SSP, Ropar, then SHO P.S.Sadar, and then Assistant Public Prosecutor, Ropar etc.
iii)Issue an appropriate directions for a detailed enquiry/investigation by an independent agency to ascertain embezzled/with held amounts of the employees provident funds by the concerned contractors and by the officers of the Thermal Power Plant from 1990 onwards.
iv)Issue a comprehensive direction for review of the procedure of inquiry/investigation at different levels SP/SSP/IG/ADGP/DGP and review of the decision by subsequent officers in criminal investigation.
v) Issue immediate directions for seizing the record of the case lying with the authorities of Guru Gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant (GGSSTP), Ropar, the office of the SSP, Ropar and with the CJM, Ropar.
vi)Issue an appropriate writ or direction for proper and effective security cover to be provided for movement of the petitioner and his family members who apprehend danger to life in the absence of proper security cover.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner who is an Ex-Indian Police Service Personnel on the ground that the case with regard to embezzlement of Employees Provident Fund was got registered by the General Manager of the Punjab State Electricity Board wherein on investigation substantial material with regard to embezzlement having been committed by the contractor as well as CWP No. 3365 of 2008 [3] officials of the Board was collected and available with the police but the police instead of filing charge-sheet filed a cancellation report which was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar.
3. All the grounds set out in the writ petition goes a long way to show that the main thrust of the petitioner is to challenge the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar passed in case FIR No. 232 dated 19.10.2002 under Sections 406, 409, 120-B IPC accepting the cancellation report. The present writ petition having been filed as PIL cannot be entertained because the alternate remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure is available to challenge the judicial order. Moreover, a Writ Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India refrains from interfering with the orders passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction which order is appealable/revisable under the relevant statute. In addition, the petitioner does not have any locus to challenge order dated 23.12.2004 by way of present PIL, accordingly, the PIL jurisdiction of this Court cannot be allowed to be resorted. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
(MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY TEWARI) 28.10.2010 JUDGE 'ravinder'