Dilbagh Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

CRM-M-41806-2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-41806-2021 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 Dilbagh Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Geeteshwar Saini, Advocate for Mr. Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No.5.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1.

Seeking quashing of enquiry report dated 15.06.2020 (Annexure P-9) conducted by Superintendent of Police, Headquarter in compliance of order dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC in the year 2021.

2.

The background relating to the present petition as well as other multiple connected inquiries and counter complaints by petitioner and the private respondent Ravi Dutt appears to be due to some personal grudge. Petitioner alleges that respondent was appointed as 4th class employee and was promoted as fireman on 23rd of January 1990. For such promotion, one of the requirements was having Heavy transport vehicle driving license. Petitioner alleges in paragraph no.4 that respondent procured such license by forging the same. On coming to know about this, petitioner filed various complaints for necessary action against the private respondent. 3.

The present petition originates from order dated 1st July, 2019 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M No. 26211 of 2019 titled 'Dilbag Singh versus State of Punjab and others." Vide order dated 1st July 2019, Co-ordinate Bench disposed of the said petition by directing the Senior Superintendent of Police to look into the matter and disposed of the representation dated 15th March 2019 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law. After that, the said application was marked for inquiry to Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.24 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

CRM-M-41806-2021 Superintendent of Police (Local) Hoshiarpur and the said officer vide Annexure P-9 decided representation dated 15.03.2019 along with other certain complaints filed by both the parties against each other with final conclusion that it be filed. 4.

Aggrieved by such order on representation, the petitioner has again come up before this Court under 482 CrPC seeking its quashing. 5.

The private respondent has also filed its reply but just like the petitioner, they are also trying to level allegations against each other. Thus, in nutshell, the brief question before this Court is to give a finding that whether the decision on the representation suffers from any prima facie illegality or arbitrariness or any other malice. 6.

State filed reply in CRM-M No.31033 of 2019. DySP has mentioned details of FIR No.20 dated 19.04.2016 registered under Section 420, 471 IPC in Police Station Talwara, District Hoshiarpur against the petitioner for forging matriculation certificate and stated that on the date of filing of reply, the trial was pending. Certainly, petitioner himself is accused of forgery.

7.

Perusal of the petition, reply and annexed documents reflects that the petitioner as well as private respondent are enjoying the litigation. Multiple inquiries have already been conducted. During the promotion of respondent No.4 by the department; complaint of petitioner has also been taken care of by the promotion committee as well as later on by the police at multiple time. 8.

I have gone through the inquiry report (Annexure P-9) which runs into 24 pages, is well reasoned, well detailed and after considering the plethora of representations, the Superintendent of Police (Local) Hoshiarpur decided the representation and main factor is that private respondent has already retired after two promotion on the past. On the other hand, petitioner is facing trial for forgery. In the considered opinion, even after detailed scrutiny, the decision of representation suffers from no illegality and there is no justification to quash the same. 9.

Given above, the petition is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 01.07.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.

Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.24 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh