Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbhej Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059045
2024:PHHC:059045
CRM-M-18439-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-18439-2024
Date of Decision: 30.04.2024
GURBHEJ SINGH
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Ms. Ojaswini Gagneja, Advocate with
Mr. Raj Kumar Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
for quashing of the clubbing order dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure P-11) passed
by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in FIR No.48 dated
27.05.2009 registered under Sections 302, 307, 427, 435, 148, 149 IPC, 1908
and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Mamdot, District
Ferozepur, Punjab and complaint case No.Crl. No.384-I dated 10.11.2009
under Section 210 Cr.P.C., quashing of the proceedings consequential to the
clubbing order and for setting aside the order dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure P-
24) whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharging him in FIR
No.48 dated 27.05.2009 has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.48 dated
27.05.2009 under Sections 302/307/435/427/148/149 IPC and Sections
25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, P.S. Mamdot came to be registered on
27.05.2009 at the instance of the complainant/Mukhtiar Singh against six
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059045
2024:PHHC:059045
persons including the petitioner. The copy of the FIR is annexed as Annexure
P-1 to the petition.
3. Two accused namely, Gurdev Singh and Sukhwinder Singh were
arrested and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted against
them on 29.08.2009 under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The copy of the said report is
attached as Annexure P-2 to the petition.
A perusal of the report would show the arrest of the remaining
four accused was shown to be pending.
4. During the course of further investigation, a supplementary
challan was submitted against three accused namely, Satinder Singh, Santokh
Singh and Daljit Kaur whereas the petitioner was declared to be innocent.
The copy of the said supplementary challan dated 09.05.2010 is attached as
Annexure P-3 to the petition.
5. Meanwhile, the complainant had filed a criminal complaint
No.384-I dated 10.11.2009 under Sections 302/307/427/435/148/149 IPC and
Sections 25/27 of Arms Act against all the six accused on 10.11.2009
levelling more or less similar allegations as had been levelled in the FIR.
Based on the said criminal complaint, a summoning order was passed by the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ferozepur under Sections
302/307/427/435/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act on
09.06.2010. The copy of the said summoning order dated 09.06.2010 is
attached as Annexure P-8 to the petition.
6. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in the
complaint case vide order dated 06.09.2011. The copy of the said order is
attached as Annexure P-9 to the petition.
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059045
2024:PHHC:059045
7. Thereafter, the complaint case and the State case were ordered to
be clubbed and tried together vide order dated 05.01.2012. The copy of the
said order is attached as Annexure P-11 to the petition.
8. As the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender, the Trial
proceeded against the five accused who were convicted by the Court of Addl.
Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 06.08.2014. The copy of the
said judgment is attached as Annexure P-12 to the petition.
9. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 09.10.2018 and got
recovered a 12 bore gun. A separate FIR No.126 dated 12.12.2018 under
Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act was registered at Police Station Mamdot,
Ferozepur.
10. As the complaint case and State case had been ordered to be
clubbed, a supplementary challan was submitted in case FIR No.48 dated
27.05.2009 under Sections 302/307/435/427/148/149 IPC and Sections
25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act. The copy of the said challan dated 01.02.2019
is attached as Annexure P-13 to the petition.
11. Charges came to be framed against the petitioner on 13.05.2019
after which all prosecution witnesses now stand examined. The copy of the
said order is attached as Annexure P-16 to the petition.
12. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed a quashing petition bearing
No.CRM-M-40890-2021 seeking quashing of the complaint, the summoning
order and the order whereby he was declared a proclaimed offender. The
complaint, the summoning order dated 09.06.2010 and all consequential
proceedings were quashed by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2023. The
copy of the said order is attached as Annexure P-22 to the petition.
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059045
2024:PHHC:059045
13. It may be relevant to mention here that the order of clubbing of
the State case and the complaint case under Section 210 Cr.P.C. was not
challenged and this fact assumes importance because the complaint and the
consequential summoning order which were quashed vide order dated
19.07.2023 ceased to have an independent identity in view of the order of
clubbing.
14. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for discharge on
02.08.2023 which application came to be dismissed on 19.09.2023. The
application for discharge and the order passed thereon are attached as
Annexures P-23 and P-24 to the petition.
15. The petitioner filed CRM-M-48560-2023 seeking quashing of
the order dated 19.09.2023 vide which the application for discharge had been
dismissed. After arguing at length the petitioner withdrew the said petition on
01.04.2024. The copy of the said order is attached as Annexure P-25 to the
petition.
16. Now the instant petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 05.01.2012 (Annexure P-12) whereby the State case and the complaint
case were ordered to be clubbed together as also the order dated 19.09.2023
vide which the application for discharge was dismissed.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the clubbing
order had wrongly been passed. Once, it was brought to the notice of the
Court in the complaint case that a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. had
been submitted in the case of five of the six accused, the Court should have
called for the said report before passing the order of summoning. She further
contends that the charge had been framed in a mechanical inasmuch as the
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059045
2024:PHHC:059045
supplementary challan (Annexure P-3) in which the petitioner had been
declared innocent had not been considered while framing charges against the
petitioner. She therefore contends that the order of clubbing was liable to be
quashed and the petitioner ought to be discharged of the charges framed
against him.
18. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the
case as a chequered history. The FIR came to be registered on 27.05.2009.
The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in a complaint case on
06.09.2011 and only came to be arrested on 09.01.2018. Fifteen years have
elapsed since the registration of the FIR and the petitioner is playing hide and
seek with the Court. Be that as it may, now, all of the 44 prosecution
witnesses stand examined and the case is posted for final adjudication and is
likely to be decided soon. Therefore, the present petition was liable to be
dismissed.
19. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the
record.
20. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be apposite to
refer to the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. and the same is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint
case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.
(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police
report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is
made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the
inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the
police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the
subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059045
2024:PHHC:059045
Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such enquiry or
trial and call for a report on the matter from the police
officer conducting the investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer
under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any
offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is
an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall
inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case
arising out of the police report as if both the cases were
instituted on a police report.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the
complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance
of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the
inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance
with the provisions of this Code.
21. A perusal of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. would show that once it is
brought to the notice of the Court that a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
has been submitted and on such report cognizance of an offence has been
taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the
complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or tried the complaint case
and the State together as if both were instituted on a police report.
22. In the instant case, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. had
been submitted against five of the accused (not including the petitioner).
However, when the summoning order was passed, all the accused including
the petitioner were summoned to face Trial vide order dated 09.06.2010.
Therefore, in terms of Section 210 Cr.P.C. the Trial Court on being made
aware that a challan also stood filed against five of the six accused who had
been summoned in a complaint case was left with no option but to order
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059045
2024:PHHC:059045
clubbing of the case under Section 210 Cr.P.C. Therefore, no fault can be
found with the order which has been passed in accordance with law.
23. Further for reasons best known to the petitioner, while
challenging the complaint, the summoning order and the order whereby he
was declared a proclaimed offender, the clubbing order was never challenged
by the petitioner. Therefore, the Trial continued on the basis of the clubbing
order and the subsequent order dated 13.05.2019 whereby charges came to be
framed against the petitioner.
24. Interestingly, the order dated 13.05.2019 framing charges was
also never challenged before a superior Court. However, on 02.08.2023
(Annexure P-23) an application for discharge was moved which came to be
dismissed on 19.09.2023 (Annexure P-24). This application for discharge
itself was not maintainable after charges stood framed and the evidence was
being recorded. The only option before the Trial Court was to proceed with
the Trial and either acquit the accused or convict him. It has been so held in
the cases of Bharat Parikh Versus C.B.I. & Anr., 2008 AIR (SCW) 4842,
Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Versus State of Maharashtra & others, 1979 AIR
(Supreme Court) 94, Himanshu Singh Rajawat & Anr. Versus State of
Maharashtra, 2018(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 698 and Atma Singh & others
Versus State of Punjab, 2006(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 989.
25. The contention of the petitioner that while framing charges on
13.05.2019 the second report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in which the
petitioner had been declared innocent had not been considered thereby
vitiating the order cannot be accepted. In the first report under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C., the arrest of the petitioner was shown to be awaited. In the second
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059045
2024:PHHC:059045
report, he was declared to be innocent. However, he came to be summoned in
a complaint case. By virtue of Section 210 Cr.P.C. the complaint case and the
State case were ordered to be clubbed together and therefore, were to be tried
as a State case. Therefore, on being summoned when the complaint case and
the State case had been ordered to be clubbed together, the framing of
charges was a natural corollary. Be that as it may, the order dated 19.09.2023
(Annexure P-24) which the petitioner has challenged in the instant petition
was impugned earlier in the petition bearing CRM-M-48560-2023 but the
said petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn. The same issue cannot be
agitated time and again.
26. Further, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that all the
44 prosecution witnesses stand examined. Therefore, the Trial is at its fag-
end. At this stage, the question of interference in the Trial does not arise.
27. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present
petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
30.04.2024
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
8 of 8
