Karnail Singh vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

This is a petition filed by Karnail Singh (hereinafter described as ''the petitioner) seeking quashing of FIR No. 29 dated 16.3.1988 registered at Police Station Ferozepur Cantt. and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including framing of the charges dated 9.3.1989.

The facts alleged are that petitioner had been working as Superintendent GradeII in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur since 3.11.1982. The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division passed an order dated 8.3.1988. The petitioner was directed to be reverted to the post of Assistant. The petitioner challenged the said order and filed a civil suit in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur. On 12.3.1988 the civil court restrained the respondents from reverting the petitioner. In face of the said order of the civil court, the petitioner continued to work as Superintendent in the office of Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter the petitioner was physically stopped from discharging his duties from 18.3.1988. A first information report was lodged against the petitioner complaining that the petitioner had been reverted to the post of Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur. The order reverting him was conveyed to him on 14.3.1988. Despite that he continued to sit in the office. This amounts to trespass and obstruction in the office work. It was registered with respect of offences punishable under Sections 186/188/427 and 447 IPC.

The petitioner contends that on basis of the allegations, no offence is made against him. Otherwise also, the civil Court had already passed an ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioner restraining his reversion to the lower post. It was further asserted that framing of the charge suffers from the vice of nonapplication of mind.

Notice of the petition had been issued. In the reply filed it is not being disputed that order reverting the petitioner to the post of Assistant was passed on 8.3.1988. With respect to adinterim ex parte injunction granted by the civil court, the plea offered was that stay order was issued on mispresentation made by the petitioner. In fact the order had been served on the petitioner on 10.3.1988 reverting him from the post of Superintendent. Since the order had been served on 10.3.1988, the petitioner could not come to the office on 14.3.1988, and work as a Superintendent. Instead the came on 14.3.1988 and started signing certain papers. The stay order so granted had been vacated on 18.7.1988.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the fact that as per the first information report, the order was communicated to the petitioner on 14.3.1988. By that time, the adinterim injunction had already been passed. Therefore, the petitioner was justified in attending the office. It was also argued that the Commissioner of the Division has already passed an order that for the period from 11.3.1988 to 16.11.1988 the petitioner has to be treated on duty as Superintendent GradeII.

The said submissions cannot be ignored. Annexure P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. It reads :

"Dated 15.3.1988 memo: Shri Karnail Singh, former Superintendent of this office was reverted to the post of Assistant in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot vide order of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur dated 8th March, 1988 forenoon. This order was conveyed to him on 14.3.1988. He came to this office and started signing on official papers in spite of being told not to do so. He continued sitting in the office. This amounts to trespass and obstruction in Government work. Therefore, a case may be registered against him and necessary action taken in accordance with law under intimation to this office. Sd/ G.A. for Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur 14/3 No. 4641/B dated 15.3.88, ADA/L Opine P1 Sd/ SSP FZR 15.3.88. A prima facie case under sections 186/188/427/447 IPC is made out."

The subordinate Judge Ist Class, Ferozepur on 12.3.1988 had already passed an order restraining the respondents from reverting the petitioner. At this stage, it is totally immaterial if the order had been obtained by misrepresentation of facts or not. The facts remain that the order has been passed restraining the State from reverting the petitioner. It is dated 12.3.1988. The petitioner was conveyed the order on 14.3.1988. Armed with the order of the Civil court, the petitioner indeed could attend the office. The question of there being any trespass, mischief, or other offences, therefore,, does not arise.

There is another way of looking at the matter. Annexure P8 is the order passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division. It reads :

"After careful consideration of the order dated 22nd January, 1993 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur Shri Karnail Singh, Assistant DC''s Office, Faridkot, is hereby considered on duty as Superintendent GradeII in DC''s office Ferozepur, for the period 11.3.1988 to 16.11.1989. After 16.11.1989, Shri Karnail Singh is already working as Assistant in Deputy Commissioner''s office, Faridkot consequent upon his reversion from the post of Supdt. GradeII to the post of Assistant."

Bare reading of the same shows that petitioner has been directed to be treated on duty as Superintendent from 11.3.1988 to 16.11.1989. Being so if he attended the work and duty as Superintendent, the offences alleged could not be drawn against him. The very basis of the allegations made by the prosecution, therefore, loses its significance. Therefore, the first information report and the subsequent proceedings in question deserve to be quashed.

For these reasons, the petition is allowed. The First Information Report and the subsequent proceedings including framing of the charge against the petitioner are quashed.