Dr. S.N.Chhokar Vs. State of Haryana and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1131845
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-04-2014
AppellantDr. S.N.Chhokar
RespondentState of Haryana and Another
Excerpt:
crm-m- 13634 of 2013 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm-m- 13634 of 2013(o&m) date of decision:4.3.2014 dr. s.n.chhokar ---petitioner versus state of haryana and another ---respondents coram: hon’ble mrs.justice rekha mittal *** present:- mr.sandeep kotla, advocate for the petitioner mr.anupam sharma, aag, haryana for respondent-state mr.jarnail singh saneta, advocate for respondent no.2 *** 1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2. to be referred to the reporter or not?. 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. *** rekha mittal, j. crm-6950 of 2014 allowed as prayed for. annexures p-11 and p-12 are taken on record. crm-m- 13634 of 2013 the present petition under section 482 of the code of criminal saini paramjit kaur 2014.03.07 15:30 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm-m- 13634 of 2013 -2- procedure (for short “the code”.) has been directed against order dated 26.3.2013 (annexure p-7) passed by the judicial magistrate ist class, panipat in complaint case no.18/2013 whereby the court instead of accepting the prayer of the petitioner to send the complaint to the police station concerned for registration of the fir and investigation in the matter by invoking section 156 (3) of the code of criminal procedure (for short “the code”.) has taken cognizance of the offence and adjourned the case for recording evidence in preliminary enquiry. counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that respondent dr. s.n.kaushik, assistant professor (sanskrit department).gandhi adars.college, samalkha, district panipat has embezzled huge amount which is public money collected by way of receipts from the students studying in the said college and the college is also receiving government aid to the tune of 95%. it is further submitted that, no doubt, the court has the discretion to send the complaint to the police for registration of fir and investigation or to take cognizance by treating it as a private complainant and then proceed under chapter xv of the code but the said discretion in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for getting registered an fir in the case has been wrongly exercised. it is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and a direction may be issued to the judicial magistrate to send the complaint to the police for taking action, in exercise of power under section 156(3) of the code. counsel for respondent no.2 would submit that there is no error much less illegality in the impugned order as would call for intervention by this court. it is further submitted that there was politics being played in the administration of the aforesaid college and the saini paramjit kaur 2014.03.07 15:30 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm-m- 13634 of 2013 -3- respondent is the victim of the said politics. according to counsel, the petitioner has been called upon to establish a prima facie case against the respondent and in case the petitioner is able to adduce evidence sufficient to convince the court to issue process, respondent no.2 would be bound to face proceedings in accordance with law. i have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. a person can file a petition before the court in regard to commission of offence and failure of the police to register an fir. it is discretion of the court to send the application for registration of an fir or to treat the application as a complaint and record evidence by following procedure envisaged in sections 200 and 202 of the code. invariably, where evidence is not within the control of the complainant and further investigation is required to be done by the police as the court does not have infrastructure to collect evidence from the accused persons and get it produced in the court, the proper cours.would be to refer the matter for investigation by the police. however, when the entire evidence is within control of the complainant, the court, instead of getting an fir registered against the accused can take cognizance of the offence and proceed with the case in compliance with the procedure laid down in the code and after appreciating the evidence, can summon the accused if the court is satisfied that there is no ground to dismiss the complaint. it is none of the plea of the petitioner that the evidence to be used against the respondent for proving his culpability is not within control of the petitioner or investigation is required to be done by the police to collect necessary evidence from the accused. to be fair, counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case the proceedings are allowed to continue as a private complaint, the petitioner saini paramjit kaur 2014.03.07 15:30 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm-m- 13634 of 2013 -4- (complainant) who has already retired from service has to appear before the trial court on each and every date to pursue the proceedings. the inconvenience likely to be caused to the complainant for appearance in the court to pursue the complaint, cannot constitute a ground to find any fault in the order impugned warranting interference by this court. for the foregoing reasons, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed. (rekha mittal) judge 04.03.2014 paramjit saini paramjit kaur 2014.03.07 15:30 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM-M- 13634 of 2013 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M- 13634 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision:4.3.2014 Dr.

S.N.Chhokar ---Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: Hon’ble MRS.Justice Rekha Mittal *** Present:- Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana for respondent-State Mr.Jarnail Singh Saneta, Advocate For respondent No.2 *** 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

*** REKHA MITTAL, J.

CRM-6950 of 2014 Allowed as prayed for.

Annexures P-11 and P-12 are taken on record.

CRM-M- 13634 of 2013 The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.07 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M- 13634 of 2013 -2- Procedure (for short “the Code”.) has been directed against order dated 26.3.2013 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat in complaint case No.18/2013 whereby the court instead of accepting the prayer of the petitioner to send the complaint to the police station concerned for registration of the FIR and investigation in the matter by invoking Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”.) has taken cognizance of the offence and adjourned the case for recording evidence in preliminary enquiry.

Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that respondent Dr.

S.N.Kaushik, Assistant Professor (Sanskrit Department).Gandhi AdaRs.College, Samalkha, District Panipat has embezzled huge amount which is public money collected by way of receipts from the students studying in the said college and the college is also receiving government aid to the tune of 95%.

It is further submitted that, no doubt, the court has the discretion to send the complaint to the police for registration of FIR and investigation or to take cognizance by treating it as a private complainant and then proceed under Chapter XV of the Code but the said discretion in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for getting registered an FIR in the case has been wrongly exercised.

It is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and a direction may be issued to the Judicial Magistrate to send the complaint to the police for taking action, in exercise of power under Section 156(3) of the Code.

Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that there is no error much less illegality in the impugned order as would call for intervention by this Court.

It is further submitted that there was politics being played in the administration of the aforesaid college and the Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.07 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M- 13634 of 2013 -3- respondent is the victim of the said politics.

According to counsel, the petitioner has been called upon to establish a prima facie case against the respondent and in case the petitioner is able to adduce evidence sufficient to convince the court to issue process, respondent No.2 would be bound to face proceedings in accordance with law.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

A person can file a petition before the Court in regard to commission of offence and failure of the police to register an FIR.

It is discretion of the Court to send the application for registration of an FIR or to treat the application as a complaint and record evidence by following procedure envisaged in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code.

Invariably, where evidence is not within the control of the complainant and further investigation is required to be done by the police as the court does not have infrastructure to collect evidence from the accused persons and get it produced in the Court, the proper couRs.would be to refer the matter for investigation by the police.

However, when the entire evidence is within control of the complainant, the court, instead of getting an FIR registered against the accused can take cognizance of the offence and proceed with the case in compliance with the procedure laid down in the Code and after appreciating the evidence, can summon the accused if the court is satisfied that there is no ground to dismiss the complaint.

It is none of the plea of the petitioner that the evidence to be used against the respondent for proving his culpability is not within control of the petitioner or investigation is required to be done by the police to collect necessary evidence from the accused.

To be fair, counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case the proceedings are allowed to continue as a private complaint, the petitioner Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.07 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M- 13634 of 2013 -4- (complainant) who has already retired from service has to appear before the trial court on each and every date to pursue the proceedings.

The inconvenience likely to be caused to the complainant for appearance in the Court to pursue the complaint, cannot constitute a ground to find any fault in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court.

For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed.

(Rekha Mittal) Judge 04.03.2014 paramjit Saini Paramjit Kaur 2014.03.07 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh