Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdeep And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 5 December, 2022
CRM-M-30802-2019 -1-
228 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-30802-2019
Date of Decision:05.12.2022
JAGDEEP AND ANR ......... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioner through instant petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C is seeking quashing the criminal proceedings initiated in FIR
No.12 dated 15.01.2019 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station
Agroha, District Hisar, under Sections 323, 325, 506 and 34 of Indian
Penal Code and Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter
was initially investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police, who did
not find petitioner guilty. The second investigation was conducted by
another DSP, who formed a total different opinion. Accordingly, the
challan was presented. The petitioner was arrested on 27.01.2019 by
DSP, Hisar and thereafter he was released on regular bail. There is no
averment qua SC/ST Act in the FIR still second investigation was
conducted and there is no provision under Cr.P.C which permits second
investigation. It is a case of abuse of process of law and misuse of power.
1 of 3
Learned State counsel on instructions from Investigating
Officer submits that there is no bar in second investigation. The
respondent No.2 in his supplementary statement which was recorded on
20.01.2019 alleged that words regarding caste were used by petitioner,
accordingly, second investigation was conducted. The DSP arrested the
petitioner and thereafter challan was presented. There are total 16
prosecution witnesses and 10 has already been examined. She further
submits that all the material witnesses have already been examined and
next date before the Trial Court is 11.01.2023. The matter is pending
before Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.
I have heard the arguments and perused the records.
From the arguments of both sides, it comes out that
respondents No.2 in his initial statement did not allege the commission
of offence punishable under SC/ST Act. The police conducted
investigation and did not find the petitioner guilty of commission of
offence under Indian Penal Code as well as Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes Act. Second investigation was conducted on the basis
of supplementary statement of respondent No.2 and accordingly
petitioner was arrested and thereafter challan was presented. The
prosecution has already examined 10 witnesses out of 16 witnesses.
It would not be in the fitness of things and interest of justice
to quash the proceedings at this belated state, however, in view of the
fact in the first investigation, the petitioner was not found guilty, it
would be appropriate that trial is expedited and concluded at the earliest.
Accordingly, Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and preferably
examine all the prosecution witnesses by 15.01.2023. The Trial Court
2 of 3
shall keep in mind mandate of Section 309 of Cr.P.C, Articles 19 and 21
of the Constitution of India as well as judgments passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hussaina Khatoon Vs. Home Secretary, State of
Bihar 1980 1 SCC 81, Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak, (1992)
1 SCC 225 and P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4
SCC 578.
The present petition is disposed of in the above terms.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
05.12.2022
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
