VIKAS GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vikas Gupta, petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30-8-2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar whereby while declining to take into consideration the discharge report submitted in the shape of supplementary challan under S. 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') a direction was given that the accused shall face trial in respect of charges under Ss. 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code already framed against the petitioner-accused as per order dated 4-7-2000 passed by the then additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.

(2.) The essential facts have to be noticed briefly for the adjudication of the present petition. Anu Gupta had made a written complaint dated 23-12-1999 in the Court which sent the same under S. 156(3) of the Code to the Police Station Division No. 5. Ludhiana for registration of the case under Ss. 406 and 498-A, IPC on the basis of which FIR No. 496 dated 23-12-1999 was registered against Vikas Gupta-petitioner. Tarsem Lal Gupta, Kanta Gupta, Vivek Gupta. Monika, Raman Singla and Suman. After investigation of the case, challan was filed against above named accused persons. Thereafter, further enquiry was conducted by Hardev Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil Lines. Ludhiana and he found involvement of only Vikas Gupta, petitioner in the commission of crime and rest of the persons named by the complainant were found to be innocent. Consequently, a supplementary challan was presented only against Vikas Gupta and the remaining accused were shown in column No. 2 of the report. Taking into consideration the supplementary challan filed, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana framed the charges under Ss. 406 and 498-A, IPC against the petitioner-accused on 4-7-2000. Thereafter, application dated 12-3-2001 was addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana with a prayer to get a further enquiry conducted into the matter by a senior officer of integrity. The said application was entrusted to the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Ludhiana. On completion of enquiry, the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Ludhiana submitted a fresh supplementary challan dated 29-3-2001 under S. 173(8) of the Code wherein he had concluded that the petitioner-accused too was innocent and his discharge from the case was sought. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, to whom the case stood transferred considered the supplementary challan but ignored the findings of the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Ludhiana and rejected the prayer made for the discharge of the petitioner-accused. Aggrieved by the order dated 30-8-2001, the present petition was filed.

(3.) Notice of this petition was given to the respondents. Anu Gupta, respondent-complainant has filed detailed reply dated 4-12-2001. It is pleaded by her that the matter had been re-investigated earlier by Shri Hardev Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil Lines, Ludhiana and a supplementary challan excluding the accused except the petitioner had been filed in view of the evidence with the Police. It is further stated that the charge had already been framed against the petitioner-accused on 4-7-2000 and submission of another supplementary challan dated 29-3-2001 was an attempt on the part of the petitioner-accused to throttle the cause of justice and for that reason justified the impugned order of the Magistrate who had declined to take notice of the prayer made in the supplementary challan for discharge of the petitioner.