Kirpal Singh Kooner v. State Of Ut Chandigarh And Another
!"
#$%$!&'
() )
Kirpal Singh Kooner ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T., Chandigarh and ors.
...Respondents
'
*+ ) ,
, ,
Present:
Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Toor, Addl.P.P., for U.T., Chandigarh. **** , , - )
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside a part of the judgment/directions contained in Para 36 of the judgment dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh (Annexure P31) in FIR No.406 dated 09.11.2012 under Sections 323, 452, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh wherein while acquitting the accused observations have been made that due to unfair and faulty investigation conducted by both the investigating officers and the SHO concerned i.e. the petitioner, the right to life and liberty of the accused persons provided under Article 21 of the Constitution was curtailed and their acts amounted to the commission of offences under Sections 1663A and 167 IPC and that the copy of the judgment be sent to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Chandigarh for necessary action with a further prayer that FIR No.0015 dated 27.01.2023 under Sections 166A and 167 IPC, Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh be quashed being an abuse of the process of the law. 2.
The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.406 dated 09.11.2012 under Sections 323, 452, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh, came to be registered by one Geeta Joshi. As per the allegations in the FIR, accused persons, namely, Anil Sood, S.K. Parmar, P.K. Mahajan, Satish Kumar and Gopal Mittal had come outside her house, removed the flower pots and uprooted trees and had assualted her while using unparliamentary language.
The investigation was initially conducted by SI Raghbir Singh. On the representation of the accused, an enquiry was conducted by the DSP, Crime Branch, Jagbir Singh who after considering the statements of the complainant, accused and the first investigating officer, prepared a report stating that only a quarrel had taken place between two parties and the complainant had not been manhandled. A copy of the report dated 04.03.2013 was exhibited as DA in the subsequent Trial. Meanwhile, SI Gurmeet Singh (PW37) was appointed as the second investigating officer by the then SHO Jaspal Singh on 05.05.2013. On 31.07.2013, SHO Jaspal Singh was transferred and Inspector Kirpal Singh (petitioner) took charge as SHO, Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh. A copy of the transfer orders dated 31.02013 is attached as Annexure P33 to the petition.
Meanwhile, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. under Sections 323, 452, 506 and 34 IPC was presented on 07.11.2013 without considering the enquiry report dated 04.03.2013. An application for discharge was moved by the accused on the basis of the enquiry report of the DSP. On 11.11.2014, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the grounds that the enquiry conducted by the DSP was not binding on the Trial Court and the accused could not be discharged only on the basis of the findings of the said DSP. A copy of the order dated 11.11.2014 is attached as Annexure P34 to the petition. Consequent to the dismissal of the discharge application, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 323, 452, 506 read with Section 34 IPC on 14.11.2014.
3.
On conclusion of the Trial, while the accused persons were acquitted, an observation was made in Para 36 of the judgment that an unfair and faulty investigation had been conducted by both the investigating officers and the SHO concerned thereby violating the fundamental right to life and liberty of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the proceedings ought to be initiated against the said accused. A copy of the judgment is attached as Annexure P31 to the petition. The relevant extract containing the observations are as under:3
!
"#$
%%&'( )()
#
!
"#$
*%
"#$
)
+
, %
-
!
".& " "./
"
"#$
0 " 1
-
23%
%"
1
4
+
"#$
5**67 *.+
5**67. 8
+
4
""
1
-
8
"#$ 1
#
(())()
4
3 +
1
-
.
7
- 7
-
9 4.
On the receipt of the aforementioned judgment and on a perusal of the observations made in Para 36, FIR No.0015 dated 27.01.2023 under Sections 166A and 167 IPC, Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh, came to be registered against the petitioner, SI Raghbir Singh, the first investigating officer and SI Gurmeet Singh, the subsequent investigating officer. A copy of the FIR No.0015 dated 27.01.2023 is attached as Annexure P32 to the petition.
5.
It is the observation contained in Para 36 of the judgment dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure P31) and the consequential FIR (Annnexure P32) which are under challenge in the present petition. 6.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that disparaging remarks passed in the impugned order on the basis of which the subsequent FIR was registered are in violation of the High Court Rules (Chapter 1 Part H Rule 6). He contends that the remarks had been made against the petitioner without following the principle of
inasmuch as the petitioner was required to be heard before the said remarks had been made pursuant to which the FIR had been registered. Reliance is placed on the judgments in
!" # $ % & ' ()"
*
% +",, - )". /* ,00
%3 1
" (' /* ,00
2 3 % 1
$"4 Even otherwise, the DSP report exonerating the accused had been considered by the Trial Court while hearing the application for discharge of the accused and the said application came to be dismissed after duly considering the said report. Therefore, it could not be said that the accused persons had suffered irreparable harm leading to the commission of offences in question by the petitioner and others. He, therefore, contends that the observations contained in Para 36 of the judgment
dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure P31) and the consequential FIR No.0015 dated 27.01.2023 (Annexure P32) were liable to be quashed. 7.
The learned counsel for the respondent3U.T., Chandigarh, on the other hand, contends that no fault could be found with the procedure adopted by the Trial Court in initiating the proceedings against the petitioner and his co3accused. It is only during the course of the Trial that the Court came to the conclusion that conduct of the petitioner and his co3accused in not bringing on record the enquiry report dated 04.03.2013 Ex.DA had amounted to the commission of offences under Sections 1663A and 167 IPC. Therefore, the present petition was liable to be dismissed.
8.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9.
Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to examine The High Court Rules (Chapter 1 Part H Rule 6) which reads as under:3 !3- 3 35)3 360.
1 1
$
1
.
'
1
:
6
+
+
6
; $
:
3
<
=
1
1 /
4
% =
& #
#
"
>
',)(6;6*5?
,*" "
;
4
1
% = +
4
#
#
'@6/85AAA.6)
?
,*9 10.
The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are discussed hereunder:3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
!" #$ %B
C6 ?
#
-
"
D= ' 7.&,*?"(E6;
!
1
-
:
4
1:
9 +
4
&0 G1 70 " E,F)"?**E
6; !
F: "0 H 201 4E,@FE 6; !
F:
" "
"
"1E)((F*"*E
; !
F: " = ' ! 7 E)(F)"*@,E
6; !
0/"
D .
.
G $E)()F"E 6; !
F *.
!
1
1
.
1 6
4
E
F
@+
' E F
-
1 @.
1
-
4
I@JK I@J' 4 1"
0E,@*F)"*,
6; !
:7 0 &" $E,,F "
E?F"*, 6;
:7== 0 / E,,(F)": 6; !
K @)& 1
4
I,JK <
I(JK I,J"
4' 1 =
= / E,@F ")):
6; !
K I(J0/"
E FK @.
1
4 8
4 9:
9 .
1
5
9IJK IJ201 4E FK ,0
1
#
CL ,<
I)JK:
I)J%& " " ! 7.&,*?":
6; !
K ,)$
1
4 IJK:
IJ%&
" E FK ,.
#
C , +
#
"
4
3 1
I?JK I?J !
4D
' !
4 E7.&,)7
, "
0 E FK ,)+
3 ; +
#
4 +
1
1 :
3
9+
-
+
>
IJK6I*JK IJ= "
" E'+%
F )((* ": 6; !
K I*JM0B7; $ E FK )(+
# -
6
8
" .
) -
#
3 E F
(@))(( <',,(,)((
=5 "
1 + +
" 4
.&
The Hob'ble Supreme Court in ' &' ()" *
% +",, - )"
4 held as under:3 ?)!
4
#
# N
4 -
"
, ,.
"
).
3N <
#
& /
? +
#
3
-
.&'@5,
;
E236%<*57F
%
+
#
1
8
3
2
3
3
+
4
#
"
*E)FEF
??
"
*E)FEF.
7
7 )(E
(())(F
"
*6%
#
"
*E)F.
N
-
4
N+
6 ?.
4
#
"
+
6
' ?E7')),,5)((,F( "
*E)FEF .
+
6 ' ?
1
1
<
=
"
G "
5 This Court in the case of . /* ,00
%3 1
"4 has held as under:3 ,23
"
;
1 "
+
"
7
3 1
>
+
1
"
(7
1
"
; )(,)(@
3 6
1
This Court in '( ' /* ,00
23 % 1
$"4 held as under:3
.
1
* 4
C6 N*7 -
<
=$
-
- # 7
<6
1
4
-
9 +
"
;
6
1
1
* 4
.
+
*
4
1 1
+
1
7
=$ /
8
.
+
& 1
*4
)()() 7 "
; 6 6 "
;
0
9 11.
A perusal of The High Court Rules (Chapter 1 Part H Rule
6) (supra) would show that if the conduct of police officers and other officers is to be criticized or any action is to be taken against an officer, then the procedure mentioned in Rule 6 is to be followed i.e. a copy of the judgment is required to be sent to District Magistrate who would forward it to the Registrar, High Court, accompanied by a covering letter given in reference to the Home Secretary's Circular dated 15.04.1936. No such procedure had been followed in the instant case and the Trial Court while acquitting the accused directed that a copy of the judgment of acquittal containing the observations be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to take legal action against the delinquent officials as per law. This procedure followed by the Trial Court is unknown to law.
12.
Further, a perusal of the judgment in
7 5" &' ()" * 5". /* 5" ('
/* 5"would show that prior to the taking of any action against any official, he must be given an opportunity of hearing to explain his position. The same having not been done in the instant case would render the proceedings initiated against the petitionerand others nugatory.
13.
In view of the aforementioned discussion, the observations contained in Para 36 of the judgment dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh (Annexure P31), the consequential FIR No.0015 dated 27.01.2023 under Sections 1663A and 167 IPC, Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh (Annexure P32) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed qua the petitioner.
14.
The present petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
, , ./.%
(-
sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned:3 Yes/No Whether reportable:3 Yes/No