JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition, which had been filed by SI Joginder Singh for seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 96 registered under Sections 194 and 195, Penal Code in Police Station Basti Jodhewal, Ludhtarrameed not be decided on merits because after the issuance of notice to the respondents to explanation how even if the case of the prosecution is to be accepted that the petitioner had wrongly recorded the statement of one Harpal Singh under Sec. 161, Crimial P.C. in which Brij Mohan had been implicated in case FIR No. 366 dated 14.11.1998 under Sec. 302, IPC, the offences under Sections 194 and 195, Penal Code would be made out, the State has Filed reply indicating that on review the Senior Superintendent of Police had directed the District Attorney (Legal) to re-consider the case FIR No. 96 dated 7.7.2000 and after receipt of report of the District Attorney (Legal) the Senior Superintendent of Police had ordered the,cancellation of the above said FIR. This petition has, therefore, been rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.

(2.) However, before parting with the judgment, it would not be out of place for me to observe that it is unfortunate that in the present case the FIR had evidently been registered without even taking into consideration the provisions of law. It would be desirable if the District Attorneys (Legal) as well as the Senior Superintendent of Police before directing the registration of any case would try to go through the bare provisions of law to Find out whether on the admitted facts any provision which they want to invoke is actually attracted to or not as this would avoid the necessity of judicial intervention in such cases.