Pawan Kumar vs State of Punjab & Ors.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This is a petition, under Section 528 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. By virtue of present petition, the petitioner is seeking the quashing of order dated 10.07.2026, hereinafter being referred to as 'impugned order', passed by the Director, Vigilance Bureau Punjab.

By virtue of impugned order, the Director, Vigilance Bureau Punjab has issued a direction for the constitution of a 'Special Investigation Team' (SIT) for the investigation of case arising out of FIR No.101 dated 14.05.2025, Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural, for the offence under Sections 420, 511, 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

The abovementioned FIR came into being at the instance of respondent No.8/complainant, namely 'Sakandar Lal', hereinafter being referred to as 'respondent No.8' only. It was complained by the respondent No.8 that Smt. Surinder Kaur daughter of 'Sardara Singh', was owner of the land ad-measuring 9 acres, and that she had executed a Will in favour of respondent No.8. As per respondent No.8, later on, 'Pawan Kumar', the petitioner herein, started staking his claim over the abovementioned land, by alleging that the abovementioned land was bequeathed by Smt. Surinder Kaur to him. According to respondent No.8, he had come to know that 'Pawan Kumar' had forged and fabricated a Will of Smt. Surinder Kaur, dated 14.02.2024, in his own favour. The respondent No.8 further alleged that the abovesaid 'Pawan Kumar' was already having six criminal cases against him, and that on the basis of forged Will, dated 14.02.2024, which was got registered on 24.05.2024, i.e. after the death of testator 'Surinder Kaur', 'Pawan Kumar' had been trying to grab the property. While claiming that the abovesaid Will was forged and fabricated document, amounting to commission of serious offence, the respondent No.8 sought for action against the culprit, namely 'Pawan Kumar', the petitioner herein.

At the very outset, it is relevant to mention here that the investigation in the abovementioned case was conducted, but the final report, under Section 173 CrPC, is yet to be filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the entire material and came to the conclusion that no case against the petitioner is made out. According to petitioner, in such circumstances a cancellation report was prepared by the Investigating Officer, which was approved by the senior police authorities also, but at that stage when the abovesaid report was pending for approval, without any authority the respondent No.7, vide order dated 10.07.2026, issued a direction for further investigation of the case by a 'Special Investigating Team'. The petitioner is aggrieved of the abovementioned order, i.e. the impugned order.

The challenge to the abovementioned order is on the ground that the respondent No.7 had got no jurisdiction/authority to pass an order for re-investigation, and secondly, that the respondent No.7, while exceeding his authority/jurisdiction, has illegally constituted a 'Special Investigation Team' in a case, wherein the investigation was already complete. It has been claimed by the petitioner that without prior permission of the Court, any order for re-investigation could not have been issued.

Heard.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that instant case is a case, wherein various authorities in response to various complaints, preferred by the respondent No.8, conducted different enquiries and it was repeatedly observed that the allegations levelled in the FIR, against the petitioner and other co-accused, were false and unsustainable. While referring to the findings recorded by the 'Human Rights Commission, Punjab', it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the abovementioned independent agency, after thorough enquiry, categorically observed that allegations, contained in the complaint being dealt with by the Commission, were unfounded and frivolous.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in the present case, this fact cannot be ignored that after investigation, a cancellation report was prepared by the Investigating Officer and he submitted the same to his superior authority, i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police, who agreed with the abovementioned report and thereafter, forwarded it to Senior Superintendent of Police. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned cancellation report, prepared by Investigating Officer, and duly approved by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, shows that there was no iota of truth in the allegation contained in the complaint, which served as foundation for the FIR No.101 dated 14.05.2025. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in such circumstances, there was no scope for indulgence or interference by the respondent No.7, and to set-up a 'Special Investigation Team'.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in fact in a very clever manner, while suppressing the material fact, a petition was filed by the respondent No.8 before this Court and in the abovementioned petition a direction was issued by this Court, by virtue of order dated 12.05.2026, that the representation preferred by the respondent No.8 be decided in a time-bound manner. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, under the garb of abovementioned order, wherein no opinion on the merits of the case were expressed, the respondent No.7 illegally passed the impugned order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.7 shows that the abovementioned order has been passed without looking into the fact that the law does not permit multiple enquiries, repeated investigation or re-investigation by the police authorities, without prior permission of the competent Court. While referring to the principles of law, laid down by this Court, in the case of 'Jaswinder Singh V/s State of Punjab' CRM-M-18244-2008, and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of 'Dalip Singh V/s State of U.P. & Ors.' (2010) 2 SCC 114, 'Parmod Kumar V/s State of U.P.' AIR 2026 SC 881 and 'Peethambarem V/s State of Kerala' 2023 SCC OnLineSC 553, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is patently illegal, unwarranted, beyond the scope of jurisdiction & competence of the respondent No.7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of abovementioned settled principles of law, the impugned order is perverse, which deserves to be set aside.

As far as the principles of law laid down in the cases, referred to in the foregoing paragraph, are concerned, it has been held in the case of 'Parmod Kumar' (supra) that Investigating Agency cannot conduct further investigation, under Section 173(8) of CrPC, without obtaining prior permission from the Magistrate or the concerned Court, even if a final report has been accepted. In the abovementioned case, the closure report filed by the police was duly accepted by the concerned Court.

Same principles of law have been propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in similar circumstances, in the case of 'Peethambaran' (supra).

As far as the principles of law laid down in the case of 'Dalip Singh' (supra), are concerned, in the abovementioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has propounded that a party suppressing the facts and misleading the Court, is not entitled to be heard on merit.

The learned State Counsel, being assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.8, has controverted the abovementioned arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.8 that instant case is a classic case, wherein the investigation has been conducted in a very unfair and biased manner, and that the entire thrust of the Investigating Agency, right from the very beginning, has been to extend illegal benefit to the petitioner by declaring him innocent, despite the fact that there is reliable documentary and scientific evidence against him. As per learned counsel for the respondent No.8, the respondent No.8 has been running from pillar to post to seek justice, but he is not able to prosecute the offenders.

According to learned counsel for the respondent No.8, the present petition has been filed by projecting as if miscarriage of justice has taken place due to setting up of a 'Special Investigation Team', whereas the sole purpose of the same is to dig-out the truth. As per learned counsel for the respondent No.8, in fact in the instant case, the Investigating Officer has rendered his opinion with regard to cancellation of the FIR, without collection of proper evidence, and without proper appreciation of the facts. The learned counsel for the respondent No.8 has further contended that the abovementioned cancellation report was presented before the Senior Officer of police Department, but it was never filed before the Court and therefore, the only inference, which can be drawn, in the given fact situation, is that the cancellation report prepared by the Investigating Officer, has neither been considered by the Court, nor the same has attained finality.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.8 has further contended that in view of the fact that cancellation report prepared by the Investigating Officer did not even receive approval of the Approving Authority and was not filed in the Court, it cannot be claimed that it has attained finality. As per learned counsel for the respondent No.8, in such a situation, this argument of petitioner has no force that the respondent No.7 has issued order for re-investigation in an illegal manner, by exceeding his jurisdiction. As per learned counsel for the respondent No.8, in fact the process of investigation in the instant case is yet to be concluded. The learned counsel for the respondent No.8 has further contended that since the cancellation report was not approved by the approving authority, the only inference, which can be drawn, in the current scenario, is that it was still pending and therefore, it is well within the authority & jurisdiction of superior police officer to direct further investigation in the case.

As per learned counsel for the respondent No.8, in the instant case the representation was addressed to respondent No.7, who under the order dated 12.05.2026, passed by this Court, issued a passed the speaking order on the representation filed by the respondent No.8, and while passing the speaking order on the representation of respondent No.8, the respondent No.7 issued a direction for setting up of a 'Special Investigation Team' for remaining part of the investigation. As per learned counsel for the respondent No.8, the significant fact to be noted in the instant case is that, that the representation by the respondent No.8 was filed before respondent No.7, before the preparation of cancellation report.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.8 has also contended that in the instant case, gross injustice is being caused to the respondent No.8, despite the fact that there is befitting evidence with regard to fraud and forgery committed by the petitioner. As per learned counsel for the respondent No.8, by false projection and misrepresentation of law, it is being claimed that without any authority, re-investigation has been ordered. According to learned counsel for the respondent No.8, in fact the police officers had sided with the petitioner and by throwing all norms to the wind, they scuttled the investigation and made efforts to declare the petitioner innocent and that on investigation of the case by SIT, their abovementioned design is likely to frustrate. The learned counsel for the respondent No.8 has also contended that the present petition has been filed with mala fide intentions, so that the truth may never come on surface and therefore, the same deserves dismissal. In view of above, the learned counsel for the respondent No.8 has sought for dismissal of present petition.

In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent No.8 has referred to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'State through Central Bureau of Investigation V/s Hemendhra Reddy & Anr.', wherein with regard to further investigation, it has been ruled that even after filing of final report before the Court of Magistrate, further investigation at the instance of Investigating Agency is permissible.

The record has been perused carefully.

In the present case, at the very outset it is pertinent to mention here that as per record, the cancellation report, which was prepared by the Investigating Officer, was not approved by the approving authority of Police, and that is why, it was not filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Thus, this plea of the petitioner cannot be sustain that the cancellation report has attained finality and therefore, without prior permission of the Court, further investigation cannot take place.

In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that as per law, any cancellation report prepared by the police can attain finality only when it is presented before the Court of Judicial Magistrate and accepted by the Magistrate. Any such eventuality has not taken place in the present case. In view of abovementioned distinguishing factor, it is hereby observed that the principles of law propounded in the case of 'Parmod Kumar' (supra) and 'Peethambaran' (supra) are not applicable to the facts & circumstances of the instant case.

Another plea taken by the petitioner in the present petition is that various authorities, i.e. Human Rights Commission Punjab and other police authorities have conducted various enquiries and found the petitioner to be innocent, and therefore, order for constitution of SIT could not have been issued. However, the abovesaid plea cannot have any bearing in the instant case as the outcome of any enquiry by any authority cannot influence the investigation in the present case. Since Human Rights Commission and other police authorities had conducted enquiry on different complaints of the respondent No.8, in my opinion, any decision taken on such complaints/enquiries cannot have any impact on the investigation of the present case.

The law does not permit that any enquiry conducted by any authority on a complaint, can have any impact on the investigation being conducted by the police in a cognizable offence, for which the FIR has been lodged. In fact, the Investigating Agency is an independent institution and the duty of Investigating Agency is to collect the evidence and submit the final report before the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Thus, merely because several authorities conducted enquiries on different complaint, cannot determine the fate of the investigation in the present case.

Thus, in view of the fact that factual matrix of the present case is altogether different from the cases of 'Jaswinder Singh' (supra) and 'Dalip Singh' (supra), it is hereby held that the principles of law laid down in the case of 'Jaswinder Singh' (supra) and 'Dalip Singh' (supra) are not applicable to the instant case.

In the present case, this fact cannot be ignored that there are very specific and categorical allegations, in the FIR, that the Will dated 14.02.2024 executed in favour of petitioner, is a forged and fabricated document. On the basis of abovementioned allegations, the investigation has been initiated. The bottom line of the abovementioned investigation would be to find out as to whether signatures of testator on the Will are genuine or not. For the abovesaid purpose, the scientific and oral evidence should have been collected by the Investigating Officer, because only such evidence can determine as to whether the petitioner is guilty of forgery and fraud or not.

The jurisdiction of any enquiry conducted by any other authority, with regard to a different complaint or with regard to the same complaint, cannot have any bearing on the investigation of the present case. The law does not permit any external agency to impose its opinion on the opinion of the Investigating Officer. Thus, it is hereby held that any report prepared by any other authority, in response to enquiry, cannot have any impact on the investigation of present case.

In the present case, this fact cannot be ignored that the purpose of conducting an investigation is digging out the truth. Since in the present case there is likelihood that the Special Investigation Team, which in every likelihood is independent of the influence of local police officer, will be in best position to dig out the truth, and there are very fair chances of dispensation of justice, in my opinion, the petitioner, who is yet to be prosecuted, has got no right to interfere in the investigation or further investigation, ordered by a superior police officer.

It is also relevant to mention here that the representation dated 04.04.2026, which was ordered by this Court to be decided, was a representation seeking for a direction to the police authorities to conduct a fair and impartial investigation and dispense justice. Since the impugned order passed by the respondent No.7 is likely to help in achieving the abovementioned goal, it is hereby observed that once the abovementioned order is for achieving the ultimate goal, set-out for justice dispensation system, in my opinion, any interference in the impugned order will amount to nothing, but miscarriage of justice.

As a sequel to abovementioned observations, in my consideration opinion, this plea of petitioner has got no force that the respondent No.7 had no jurisdiction or authority to set-up a 'Special Investigation Team' to carry out further investigation in the present case. Thus, it is hereby observed that the present petition is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. The same is hereby dismissed, accordingly.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly