SARBJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS necessary for the disposal of this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) areas follows.

(2.) THE occurrence, took place on 2-11-1986 in which one Dharam Singh is alleged to have fired two shots from his licensed gun at Baljinder Singh. A case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Dharam Singh. Accused Dharam Singh was acquitted after trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot on 1-4-1989. With regard to the same occurrence it was alleged that Sarbjit Singh, Sub Inspector, who was Station House Officer of Police Station, Gidderbaha, at the material time had accepted a bribe of Rs. 500/- from Dharam Singh in order to help him with regard to the above occurrence. A case FIR No. 117 dated 3-7-1987 was registered under section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, against the said, Sarbjit Singh. He was tried and acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide order dated 17-10-1989. In continuation of the same occurrence, further FIR being FIR No. 96 dated 21-61989 has been registered under sections 217 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code against Sarabjit Singh aforesaid. It is alleged that a telegram was received in the Police Station by, Kulwant Chand, Assistant Clerk in the police station, at about 6.30 P.M. on 2-11-1986 with regard to the main occurrence of firing and attempt to murder. In order to help the accused therein, Sarbjit Singh who was otherwise present in the Police Station at that time in the presence of ASI Bhim Singh asked Kulwant Chand, Assistant Clerk, to make a false entry in the D. D. register to the effect that the Station House Officer had left the Police Station earlier at 5.00 p.m. that evening and he was unwell and that further action on the telegram would be taken on his return after papers had been put up to him. No further action was taken and the allegation made in the aforesaid FIR was that this had been done by Sarbjit Singh, Sub Inspector, in order to save Dharam Singh from legal punishment. The stand of the petitioner is that the registeration of the present case is an abuse of the process of the Court and the FIR should be quashed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through final report submitted under section 173 of the Code with regard to FIR No. 117 dated 3-7-1987 under section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Even though the above mentioned facts regarding entry of D.D. report at the instance of Sarbjit Singh, Sub Inspector, are not mentioned in the F.I.R. itself, these facts are expressly mentioned in the aforesaid final report under section 173 of the Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to section 300 of the Code. Sub-section (1) of section 300 of the Code which is material reads as under :-