Paramjit Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

S.D. Anand, J.—The controversy is very simple in character. The prosecution filed a plea u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for the summoning of respondent

No.2-Gurdev Kaur to face a trial u/s 420/120B IPC. In support of the request, the prosecution relied upon the averments made in course of the

complaint, First Information Report and also the substantive testimony made by the complainant before the Trial Court on 20.10.2006. The plea

came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 30.01.2007.

However, that order was invalidated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), vide order dated 20.09.2007. In recording

that finding the learned Revisional Court placed reliance upon the fact that respondent No.2-Gurdev Kaur had been found innocent by the

Investigating Agency, in that context, learned Revisional Court recorded the following observations:-

The interest of such like private complainants are always subject to interest of the State which are larger. Investigating Agency is headed by State

and some sanctity of truth is attached to State Investigating Agency established when there is Senior Police Officer so it cannot be mechanically

accepted that every investigation is doubtful as in this case there is no evidence to doubt separating of the chaff from grain of truth for that the facts

brought to light by Superior Officer also has to be believed until and unless some main accused is allowed fore go scot free some ulterior motive of

the police so such like mini trial and stalling the main trial should be discouraged by the trial Court.

The complainant has filed the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order dated 20.09.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala.

I have heard Mr.Vikas Mahsempuri, learned counsel for the petitioner for the petitioner, Ms.Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

and Mr.I.S.Pabla, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

It would be apparent from a perusal of the impugned order itself that allowance of the plea u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was based upon the substantive

testimony of the complainant which she had made at the trial. Learned Trial Magistrate recorded a well reasoned order indicating in the course

thereof that he was allowing the said plea on the basis of contents of the complaint, First Information Report and also substantive testimony of the

complainant at the trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in discarding the well reasoned observations made by the learned Trial

Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was also not justified in placing implicit reliance upon the finding of ''exoneration'' recorded by

the Investigating Agency in favour of respondent No.2-Gurdev Kaur. The finding by the Investigating Agency cannot be given priority over the

finding recorded by a Judicial Court. That is the crux of the issue.

In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The order dated 20.09.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge shall stand quashed. The order dated 30.01.2007 passed by learned Trial Magistrate is restored.