Narender Singh and Another vs State of H.P. and Another

Sanjay Karol, J.—In relation to FIR No. 1/03, dated 21.1.2003, under the provisions of Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kangra at Dharamshala, challan was presented for trial in the Court of Special Judge, Dharamshala. On 20.7.2011, in the presence of the counsel for the parties, the said Court passed the following order:

Accused Narinder Singh and Baldev Singh has wrongly been framed as accused as no cognizance has been against them. Therefore they need not appear. Discharged.

Accused Kuldeep be summoned and his surety to produce him and the Ahalmad to trace out the bail bonds of accused Kuldeep for 6.8.2011.

Record reveals that thereafter the matter came up for hearing before the Court on 6.8.2011, 19.8.2011, 14.11.2011 and 5.1.2012, when accused Kuldeep was heard on the question of framing of charge. On 13.1.2012, the Court passed the following order:

Heard. In this case allegation against the accused are that he had committed the offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC only and there are no allegations that the accused had committed offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). u/s 3(1) read with section 5(1) of the Act, the Special Judge can try any offence under the Act, without the accused being committed for trial. In view of section 4(3) of the Act, Special court can try other offences under the other Acts also, while trying the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the Special Judge cannot take cognizance of the offences under the other Acts simplicitor, when the challan is not filed for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Therefore, the file is ordered to be returned to the SHO to file the challan before the ld. JMIC Indora, within whose jurisdiction the offences are alleged to have been committed, as that court has the jurisdiction to try the cases under IPC simplicitor. The bail bonds furnishing before this court are discharged. The file be sent back to S.P. Vigilance forthwith for compliance, and the record of the court be consigned to the record room.

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora, specifically did not order that summons be issued against the present petitioners Shri Narinder Singh and Shri Baldev Singh, who stood discharged by the learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in terms of order dated 20.7.2011.

It is also seen that names of the present petitioners were referred to in column No. 12 of the challan, but the Court has also not passed any specific order directing that summons be issued to them also, yet they have been summoned in terms of summons issued on 14.9.2012 (Annexure P-3). Significantly, there is no order by the Court concerned summoning the present petitioners. It appears that the summons have been issued in a routine manner and as such they are quashed. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is allowed. It is clarified that trial against accused Kuldeep shall continue. Since petitioners stand already discharged, there was no question of issuing the summons, in relation to the very same offence. Record be immediately sent back.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.