Swarsha Rani v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-42925-2023 2023:PHHC:113602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.42925 of 2023 Date of Decision: 29.08.2023 Swarsha Rani ...PeƟƟoner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the peƟƟoner.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police StaƟon SecƟons 04.08.2022 Vigilance Bureau Range, 7 of PrevenƟon of CorrupƟon District Ferozepur Act, 1988 and amdned Act, 1.
Aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2023, vide which, the trial Court has permiƩed the invesƟgaƟng agency to produce the accused before the FSL, Mohali for taking her voice samples, the peƟƟoner has come up before this Court. 2.
The peƟƟoner is facing prosecuƟon under the above capƟoned FIR and the invesƟgaƟon is going on. On 13.10.2022, the Deputy Superintendent of Vigilance Bureau filed an applicaƟon before the Sessions Court for taking voice samples of peƟƟoner-Swarsha Rani and Karan Kataria. There is recorded conversaƟon which is material to prove the guilt of the accused person(s). The said audio conversaƟon was transferred in a pen drive and handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, InvesƟgaƟng Officer. In the recording, there is conversaƟon between peƟƟoner and Karan Kataria-APO in which peƟƟoner and said Karan Kataria talked about complainant work and demand by peƟƟoner.
3.
The peƟƟoner had filed a reply to the said applicaƟon and paragraphs 1 and 2 of which read as follows:
1.
That the present applicaƟon for similar prayer is second in
CRM-M-42925-2023 2023:PHHC:113602 row. Moreover as per latest development in present case complainant and Sukhjinder Singh @ Shammy son of Baldev Singh resident of Chak Roran Wala @ Tambu Wala Tehsil Jalalabad District Fazilka, who was blackmailing brother of accused/applicant and was seeking money from him for himself and also for Vigilance Bureau Unit Fazilka. Sandeep Singh son of Om Singh resident of Village Chak Tahliwala Teshil Jalalabad District Fazilka allured complainant and Sukhjinder Singh @ Shammy was caught red handed by Vigilance Bureau Unit Ludhiana while receiving money from Sandeep Singh. FIR No. 11 dated 30.09.2022 under SecƟon 7A PrevenƟon of CorrupƟon Act, 1988 as amended by Amenment Act 2018 is registered against complainant Sukhjinder Singh @ Shammy at Vigilance Bureau Unit Ludhiana.
Voice recording conversaƟon of Sandeep Singh and of complainant Sukhjinder Singh @ Shammy is also with the Vigilance Bureau Unit Ludhiana, which is detailed in facts of FIR. Complainant of present case is enclosed for the kind perusal of this Bureau Unit Fazilka is nothing else but to put pressure upon accused/applicant and her brother not to presue FIR registered against complainant at Vigilance Bureau Unit Ludhiana.
"2. That earlier similar kind of applicaƟon dated 05.08.2022 was filed by Vigilance Bureau in the Court of Ld. CJM Fazilka for seeking permission to take voice sample of accused/applicant for comparison with the voice sample allegedly produced by complainant Sukhjinder Singh @ Shammy. Said applicaƟon was allowed vide order dated 06.08.2022. Further in compliance of order Ld. CJM accused/applicant and complainant Sukhwinder Singh were produced on 31.08.2022 at 2.30 PM at FSL SAS Nagar
CRM-M-42925-2023 2023:PHHC:113602 Mohali through SI Machinder Singh of Vigilance Bureau Unit Fazilka.
4.
Counsel for the peƟƟoner submits that similar kind of applicaƟon dated 05.08.2022 was filed by the Vigilance Bureau and the same was allowed, then there was no reason to file another applicaƟon aŌer filing of the challan. 5.
Impugned order dated 04.07.2023 Annexure P-8, passed by trial Court by placing reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan V. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 463 and directed to peƟƟoner to give voice samples.
6.
The maƩer revolves around a conversaƟon which had taken place between Karan Kataria, A.P.O and the peƟƟoner-Swarsha Rani and in the said conversaƟon, the peƟƟoner had disclosed about the details of MB work pertaining to the file of the complainant pending before her. It is the said pending work on which she allegedly accepted Rs.25,000/- as illegal graƟficaƟon from the complainant-Sukhjinder Singh.
7.
Considering the nature of job, the peƟƟoner was performing and serious nature of allegaƟons of demanding money to sancƟon someone's legally enƟtled remuneraƟon, the recording of her voice sample will not at all prejudice the peƟƟoner but in fact it shall absolve the peƟƟoner in case she was innocent. 8.
Given above, there is no merit in the peƟƟon and the same is dismissed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 29.08.2023 JyoƟ-II Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.