Satyanarayan Alias Satya Narain ... vs State Of Haryana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3345 P&H

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047815




                                                           2023:PHHC:047815



CRR-943-2022 (O & M)                                                              ::1::


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH


                                                   CRR-943-2022 (O& M)
                                                   Date of Decision:10.04.2023


Satyanarayan @ Satya Narain Bagria @ Satya Narayan @ Lal

                                                                       ... Petitioner
                                        Versus
State of Haryana and anr.
                                                                    ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:    Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

            Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate,
            for respondent No.2.

            ****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the

judgment dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar

vide which two revision petitions (one filed by the State and one filed by the

complainant) against the common order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hissar in case FIR No.38 dated 02.03.20219

under Sections 406/420 IPC vide which the present petitioner was discharged

of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC was set aside.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.38 dated

02.03.2019 under Section 406 and 420 IPC (added later on), Police Station

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047815

2023:PHHC:047815

CRR-943-2022 (O & M) ::2::

Adampur, District Hissar was got registered by the complainant/respondent

No.2 with the allegations that the petitioner had taken a sum of Rs.4 lacs for

obtaining a Government job for the son of the respondent No.2/complainant

Balwant @ Doctor. As per the FIR, the conversation pertaining to the

transaction had been recorded in a mobile phone and the police and

investigating agency was informed about the said recording. The copy of the

FIR No.38 dated 02.03.2019 is attached as Annexure P-1 to the present

petition.

3. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested

and the recovery of some money was effected from him. Consequent there to,

a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. came to be presented against the

petitioner.

4. Thereafter, vide order dated29.02.2019 (Annexure P-2) the

petitioner came to be discharged on the ground that there was no recording of

any voice conversation or CD attached with the challan to corroborate the

allegations levelled by the complainant/prosecution and the bald statement of

the complainant was not enough to charge the accused for the offences under

Sections 420/406 IPC.

5. Against the aforementioned order of discharge, the complainant-

Balwant @ Doctor filed a Criminal Revision No.14 of 2020 whereas the State

of Haryana filed a Criminal Revision No.09 of 2020. Vide order dated

24.09.2021, the aforesaid revisions petitions were accepted and the Trial

Court was directed to proceed further in the light of the observations made in

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047815

2023:PHHC:047815

CRR-943-2022 (O & M) ::3::

the said judgment. A copy of the judgment dated 24.9.2021 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar is attached to the present petition.

The judgment dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Hisar, is under challenge in the present petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused contends that

other than the bald statement of the complainant, there is absolutely no

evidence on the file to substantiate the allegations levelled by the

complainant. The impugned order had been wrongly passed because four

CDs referred to in the FIR had not been made a part of the report under

Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and in the absence of the said electronic evidence

being made a part of the record, the same could not be looked into for the

purpose of faming of charge. Therefore, the petitioner had rightly be

discharged.

7. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends

that no fault could be found with the impugned judgment dated 24.09.2021.

During the course of an enquiry, the accused-petitioner Satyanarayan @ Satya

Narain Bagria @ Satya Narayan @ Lala had admitted the fact that he had

received money from the complainant and had promised to return the same in

instalments of Rs.20,000/- per month. This had not been agreed to by the

complainant. A recovery of Rs.18,000/- had been effected from the

petitioner/accused. Therefore, the order of discharge dated 29.02.2020

(Annexure P-2) passed by the JMIC, Hisar was illegal and unlawful and the

Revisional Court had rightly interfered with the same.

                                 3 of 5

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047815




                                                           2023:PHHC:047815



CRR-943-2022 (O & M)                                                              ::4::

8. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 has

reiterated the arguments of the learned counsel for the State contending that

since the charge could be framed on the basis of suspicion alone, there was no

illegality in the impugned judgment and therefore, the present petition was

liable to be dismissed.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10. Admittedly, other than the uncorroborated statement of the

complainant and a subsequent recovery of Rs.18,000/- from the petitioner on

the basis of his disclosure statement, there is no other corroborative evidence

to substantiate the allegations levelled by the complainant. However, a

perusal of the FIR would clearly reveal that there was electronic evidence in

the form of phone recordings contained in the CDs which had been provided

to the investigating agency by the complainant. For the reasons best known

to the investigating agency, the same have not been made a part of the record.

11. Be that as it may, as has been observed above, since the only

existing evidence against the petitioner as per the report under Section 173(2)

Cr.P.C. is the bald statement of the complainant and the recovery of

Rs.18,000/- from the petitioner, the said evidence would be insufficient to

frame charges.

12. Therefore, I find considerable merit in the present petition and

the judgment dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Hisar is hereby quashed.

                               4 of 5

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047815




                                                           2023:PHHC:047815



CRR-943-2022 (O & M)                                                              ::5::

13. However, the investigating agency is at liberty to further

investigate the matter and bring on record the four CDs referred to in the FIR

on the record of the case by way of a report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and

the Trial Court shall, thereafter proceed in accordance with the law.

14. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

April 10, 2023 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No

Whether reportable:- Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047815

5 of 5