Respondent No.6 in Person Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1071593
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-20-2013
AppellantRespondent No.6 in Person
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
crm not m-37662 of 2010 (o&m) -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh (221) crm not m-37662 of 2010 (o&m) date of decision:20.05.2013. fateh singh saini ......petitioner versus state of haryana and others .......respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.pritam saini, advocate for the petitioner. mr.gaurav dhir, dag, haryana. respondent no.6 in person **** sabina, j. petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 28.01.2010 (annexure p-6) whereby chief judicial magistrate had ordered for reinvestigation of the case on a cancellation report submitted by the investigating agency. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that fir in question was registered with regard to commission of offence punishable under the prevention of corruption act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as act) including other offences under the indian penal code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as ipc).hence, the cancellation report should have been submitted before the court of special judge and not before the court of chief judicial magistrate. respondent no.6, who is present in person has crm not m-37662 of 2010 (o&m) -2- very fairly conceded to the legal proposition that cancellation report in the present case was liable to be presented before the court of special judge, as the fir had also been registered with regard to commission for offences punishable under the act. in the present case, fir in question was registered against the petitioner and other accused with regard to commission of offence punishable under section 465, 467, 468, 471, 379 and 120-b ipc and under section 7/13 of the act at police station chandni bagh, panipat. since fir had been registered with regard to commission of offence punishable under the act, the cancellation report or challan, as the case may be was liable to be presented before the court of special judge and not before the court of chief judicial magistrate. the investigating agency erred in presenting the cancellation report before the court of chief judicial magistrate and the learned chief judicial magistrate has further erred in ordering reinvestigation of the case as the report was not liable to be dealt by the said court. accordingly, this petition is allowed. impugned order dated 28.01.2010 (annexure p-6) is set aside. investigating agency would be at liberty to present the cancellation report before the court of special judge for further necessary action. (sabina) judge may 20, 2013 sandeep sethi
Judgment:

CRM not M-37662 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (221) CRM not M-37662 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:20.05.2013.

Fateh Singh Saini ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.

Respondent No.6 in person **** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 28.01.2010 (Annexure P-6) whereby Chief Judicial Magistrate had ordered for reinvestigation of the case on a cancellation report submitted by the investigating agency.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR in question was registered with regard to commission of offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act) including other offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC).Hence, the cancellation report should have been submitted before the Court of Special Judge and not before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Respondent No.6, who is present in person has CRM not M-37662 of 2010 (O&M) -2- very fairly conceded to the legal proposition that cancellation report in the present case was liable to be presented before the Court of Special Judge, as the FIR had also been registered with regard to commission for offences punishable under the Act.

In the present case, FIR in question was registered against the petitioner and other accused with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 465, 467, 468, 471, 379 and 120-B IPC and under Section 7/13 of the Act at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat.

Since FIR had been registered with regard to commission of offence punishable under the Act, the cancellation report or challan, as the case may be was liable to be presented before the Court of Special Judge and not before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The investigating agency erred in presenting the cancellation report before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has further erred in ordering reinvestigation of the case as the report was not liable to be dealt by the said Court.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

Impugned order dated 28.01.2010 (Annexure P-6) is set aside.

Investigating agency would be at liberty to present the cancellation report before the Court of Special Judge for further necessary action.

(SABINA) JUDGE May 20, 2013 sandeep sethi