Rajinder Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIRNo.70 dated 23.12.1995 registered at Police Station, Bhadson, District Patiala under Sections 447/452/427/379/506/148/149 IPC and proceedings taken thereon.

Briefly the facts of the case are that there is a civil dispute between gram panchayat and complainant Surjan Singh. The complainant raised a wall on the land of gram panchayat. On 23.12.1995, the complainant reported to the police that a well had been demolished forcibly and the petitioners were responsible for the same. The FIR was registered on the complaint filed by the complainant. Police made investigation into the case and after thorough investigation submitted the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. and recommended that there was no evidence against the petitioners. In the investigation it was stated that the petitioners had not demolished the wall belonging to the complainant. The petitioners have been involved as they were the members of the gram panchayat. However, the cancellation report submitted by the police was not accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nabha, who vide his order dated 11.8.1997 ordered that the case will be fixed for recording evidence of complainant. Learned Magistrate further ordered that FIR could be treated as a complaint. Order dated 11.8.1997 reads as under:-

Present: Complainant with his counsel. Accused on bail.

"After hearing the Id. counsel for the parties, it is ordered that the case will be fixed for recording evidence of complainant and it shall be treated in the form of a complaint. The FIR could be treated as complaint. To come up for precharge evidence'' of complainant on 9.9.97.

Sd/-

JMIC/11.8.97.

Mr. H.S. Dhandi, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the cancellation report submitted u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was not accepted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, he could have directed the complainant to file a complaint before the competent Court but could not convert the FIR into the complaint. He further argued that as the FIR could not be converted into the complaint, therefore, no evidence can be recorded. As envisaged under the Cr.P.C. The procedure of filing of separate complaint and recording evidence should have been followed.

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no cancellation report was put up before the Illaqa Magistrate, however, an untraced report was submitted.

This stand on behalf of the State is absolutely wrong as according to order dated 29.11.1996 passed by the Magistrate, the cancellation report had been filed in the present case. Thus, the stand of the State Government cannot be accepted. In view of the above facts, it is clear that learned Judicial Magistrate has converted the FIR into the complaint and had started recording evidence. In case cancellation report is not accepted by the Magistrate, then it can direct the complainant to file a separate complaint and only thereafter can precharge evidence can be recorded, but the FIR cannot be converted into a complaint.

In view of this matter, I quash FIR No.70 dated 23.12.1995 registered against the petitioners at Police Station, Bhadson, District Patiala. All subsequent proceedings being abuse of the process of law undertaken in pursuance to the registration of the FIR shall also be quashed. The petition is allowed.