Jarnail Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by means of FIR No. 224 dated 27.12.1996 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. After investigation of the case, the police submitted the un-traced report (Annexure P2) on the basis of enquiry report (Annexure P3), which were accepted by the JMIC, by way of order dated 1.9.1997 (Annexure P4). In the wake of revision petition of State of Punjab, the matter was remanded back by the revisional Court, vide order dated 13.3.1999 (Annexure P6).

Dissatisfied, the petitioners-accused filed the petition u/s 482 Cr.PC, challenging the revisional order (Annexure P6). The petition was partly accepted. The case was sent back to the Area Magistrate to decide the matter afresh by this Court, by virtue of order dated 23.5.2000 (Annexure P7).

Thereafter, the police had also moved an application for re-investigation of the case u/s 173(8) Cr.PC, which was dismissed by the JMIC, vide order dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure P8/A). At the same time, the JMIC again accepted the un-traced report and cancelled the case, by means of order of even date (Annexure P8).

The State of Punjab did not challenge the order (Annexure P8). However, the revision petition was filed against the order (Annexure P8/A), declining its prayer for re-investigation in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The revision petition was accepted and the police was permitted to re-investigate the case by the revisional Court, through the medium of impugned order dated 17.1.2004 (Annexure P10).

The petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P10), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this respect.

As is evident from the record, that a criminal case was registered against the accused on 27.12.1996 as back as more than 15 years ago under sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Having completed the investigation, the police came to a definite conclusion that a false case was registered against the accused. Consequently, the un-traced report (Annexure P2) was submitted on the basis of detailed inquiry report dated 17.3.1997(Annexure P3). The un-traced report was accepted and the case was ordered to be consigned as cancelled by the JMIC, vide order (Annexure P4). In the wake of revision petition of State of Punjab, the matter was remanded back by the revisional Court, vide order (Annexure P6).

Ultimately, on the petition filed by the petitioners-accused against the order (Annexure P6), this Court again remitted the matter back to the Magistrate, by means of order (Annexure P7), the operative part of which is as under:

Resultantly, the present petition is partly allowed. The orders dated 1.9.1997 and 13.3.1999 are hereby set aside and directions are given to the area Magistrate to apply his mind afresh to the untraced report and if he agrees with the recommendations of the Senior Superintendent of Police, he should not have any hesitation in accepting the same as "untraced". The Magistrate would not insist for the presence of the petitioners. Copy of the order be sent to the Area Magistrate of Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala.

Sequelly, the Magistrate again accepted the un-traced report and cancelled the case, vide order dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure P8). At the same time, he has also dismissed the police application for re-investigation of the case, by way of order (Annexure P8/A) of even date. It is not a matter of dispute that State of Punjab did not challenge the order (Annexure P8). However, the revision petition filed by the State against the order (Annexure P8/A), declining its application for re-investigation, was accepted and the revisional Court has ordered the re-investigation of the case in a very routine manner, vide impugned order (Annexure P10).

Here, to me, the revisional Court slipped into a deep legal error in this regard. Once the untraced report was accepted and the case was finally cancelled by the Magistrate, by virtue of order (Annexure P8), which had attained the finality, in that eventuality, there was no occasion for the revisional Court to again order the re-investigation in such an old and routine matter, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P10). Therefore, to my mind, the revisional Court has committed a grave illegality and procedural irregularity in this behalf and the impugned order cannot legally be sustained in the eyes of law in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the present petition is accepted and the impugned order (Annexure P10) is hereby set aside. Consequently, the old and routine matter is set at rest.