TILAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of impugned First Information Report No. 299 dated 13-7-84, PoliceStation Nissing and consequent proceedings taken thereunder including the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 31-7-89, whereby, on the application moved on behalf of the prosecution under section 311 of the Code, the trial Court allowed summoning of 40 witnesses to prove the material facts in the case.

(2.) IN brief, facts relevant for the disposal of the case as emerge from the impugned first information report, are, that on 13-7-1984 Inspector Des Raj along with other police officials was busy in the investigation of another criminal case in village Dachar. He received a secret information that Tilak Raj (accused), who, was employed as a Conductor in the Haryana Roadways, after printing Haryana Roadways Tickets, supplied the same on payment to the passengers and after forging certificate of Haryana Education Board, he supplied the degrees (Sanad) to the needy people, and, if a raid was conducted then forged tickets of the Haryana Roadways and forged Sanads of the Education Board together with stamps and ink etc. could be recovered from him. On the basis of the said information, First Information Report was got registered at the Police Station. After completion of the investigation report under section 173 of the Code was submitted in the Court by the police on 9-10-86, and, both the petitioners were challaned. The proceedings in this case have been adjourned from time to time in order to await the report of the Hand Writing Expert, which, was not filed along with the challan and ultimately on 26-9-87 the State counsel made a statement that no such report was to be filed. On 29-9-1987, the learned trial Magistrate framed the charge under Sections 420/416/467/468/471 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, even though according to the petitioners, no prima facie case was made out against them. Thereafter, several adjournments were granted including 4 or 5 last opportunities to the prosecution to adduce its evidence, by the trial Court. It is further alleged that on 31-7-89 in order to prolong the trial, application for summoning about 40 prosecution witnesses, under section 311 of the Code, was filed in the trial Court which committed grave error in summoning about 40 prosecution witnesses without proper application of mind.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners did not address any argument concerning the quashment of the impugned first information report, perusal whereof does not prima facie indicate that no criminal offence in respect of which the said F.I.R. was registered, has been made out. In these circumstances, impugned first information report cannot be legally quashed.