SAVTANTAR RAI BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for the issuance of directions to respondent Nos.2 to 7 (official respondents) to conduct fair investigation in the case FIR No. 68 dated 22.05.2020 which according to the petitioner has been registered against him falsely solely with the objective to declare the respondent No.8 who is a liquor contractor innocent in case FIR No.75 dated 12.04.2020 (P/2) which was initially registered against him for selling liquor during lock down. It is prayed that the case FIR 68 dated 22.05.2020 be investigated by some superior officer of some other district than the home District Pathankot.

(2.) It is pleaded in the petition that one FIR No.75 dated 12.04.2020 (P/2) was registered under Sections 188, 269 IPC and 61-1-14 of Punjab Excise Act against Davinder Singh (Respondent No. 8) who is a liquor contractor for selling liquor during curfew imposed in the State of Punjab. Davinder Singh had filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail which was dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2020 (P-3) passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. It is further pleaded that when Davinder Singh failed to get the relief of anticipatory bail he moved an application for enquiry and managed to get clean chit by using his influence in connivance with the police officials. During enquiry, he came with the defence that the petitioner had snatched his car carrying liquor and petitioner along with other persons were made scapegoat by registering the present FIR against them in order to save said Davinder Singh.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that no offence under Section 379B is made out. The complainant alleged that there were 5 persons transporting the liquor in his van and petitioner along with other persons armed with dangs etc. snatched his vehicle. It is highly improbable that when on both sides there were number of persons neither any fight took place nor any injury was suffered by any person on either side. Further, it is submitted that the complainant failed to show that any permission from respondent No.2 or 3 was obtained for transporting the liquor as there were seals affixed on all the liquor shops during curfew imposed in the State of Punjab. There is no explanation as to why he was transporting the liquor at 12 midnight and how he had apprehension of theft from his liquor shop which was just at 100 meters distance from police post at Gharota.