Sunderpal Singh vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 13718 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sunderpal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 August, 2024

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101628



CRM-M No.22983 of 2024                       -1-



112-2

           THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH


                                        CRM-M No.22983 of 2024
                                        Date of Decision: 06.08.2024

Sunderpal Singh
                                                             ..... Petitioner

                                    Versus

State of Punjab
                                                          ..... Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

                   ***
Present:     Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate and
             Mr. Nitish Sharma, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

                   ***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing of FIR No.60, dated 11.04.2024, under Section 22 of NDPS

Act, 1985, Police Station Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur (Annexure P-

1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom bring illegal

and abuse and misuse of process of law and the Court. Further prayer has

been made for staying the further proceedings arising out of the above

said FIR during the pendency of the present petition.

2. As per facts of the case, the police party on receiving the

secret information about the petitioner laid the barricade and thereafter

the petitioner was apprehended and 450+70=520 tablets of Tramadol

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101628

Hydrochloride were recovered from him. As he failed to produce any

licence regarding possession of the same, the FIR was registered and the

petitioner was arrested in this case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

petitioner is a young boy, who is a student of B.Sc Agriculture. He has

submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case

under the political pressure. He submits that no photography or

videography of the recovered articles at the site was conducted. He has

submitted that on the basis of false and fabricated story, the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner was

arrested by the police and thereafter on account of his examination, he

was granted interim bail. He has submitted that the petitioner has been

implicated in a false case by the police so the FIR in question along with

all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak

and others", Crl. Appeal Nos.2040-2041 of 2012 (Para No.34) and

"Ajay Mitra vs. State of M.P. and others", 2003(1) RCR (Criminal)674.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG,

Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State. He

has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

He however at the outset has submitted that the allegations made by

learned counsel for the petitioner are totally misconceived. He has

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101628

submitted that the investigation has been carried out by the Investigating

Agencies in a free and fair manner and on completion of the same, the

charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been filed before the

trial Court. He has submitted that after filing of the charge sheet, the

learned trial Court has also framed the charges against the petitioner and

now the case is fixed for recording of the evidence. He submits that the

learned trial Court has already taken the cognizance of the offence on the

basis of charge sheet filed by the Investigating Agencies. He has further

submitted that the trial is in progress and at this stage, there is nothing on

record to suggest that any false case has been registered against the

petitioner and as such the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard.

7. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the

record, it is apparent that the petitioner was arrested in the present case

on the basis of secret information received about him. As per the case of

prosecution, on his search, 450+70=520 tablets of Tramadol

Hydrochloride were recovered from him. The investigation of the case as

submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is already complete. The

charge sheet has been filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the

trial Court has framed the charges as well and thus, the cognizance has

already been taken by the trial Court and now the case as per the

submissions made before this Court is fixed for the recording of the

evidence. In all its humility, there is no dispute regarding the law settled

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments relied upon by learned

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101628

counsel for the petitioner, however in the facts and circumstances of the

case, the same are distinguishable. The contentions raised by learned

counsel for the petitioner are totally a matter of trial which can be

appreciated by the trial Court on weighing the evidence led by both the

sides.

8. The Apex Court in "State of Haryana and others vs.

Bhajan Lal and others", 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 held as under:

"107 In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101628

not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

108 We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the p reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the alleg~tions made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice."

9. Thus, this Court does not find any merit in the present

petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However the Court has not

given any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner would be at

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101628

liberty to raise all his contentions before the learned trial Court at the

appropriate stage in accordance with law.

                                                      (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
06.08.2024                                                   JUDGE
rittu
             Whether speaking/reasoned            :     Yes/No
             Whether reportable                   :     Yes/No




                                6 of 6