RAJBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJBIR Singh petitioner has brought this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking the quashing of the order dated March 16, 1992 passed by Judge, Designated Court, Bhiwani & Annexure P2 and charge sheet, Annexure P3, of the same date.

(2.) FACTS of this case are that FIR No. 382 under Sections 307/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25/27/154/59 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 6, of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short TADA) was registered against Rajbir Singh, petitioner herein, on September 24, 1990 in Police Station City, Bhiwani on the challan having been filed Shri M. R. Bansal, Judge, Designated Court (Sessions Judge), Bhiwani vide his order dated March 16, 1992 directed framing of the charge against the petitioner under Sections 3/6 TADA, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Accordingly charge sheet Annexure P3 was drawn against the petitioner on the same date.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued firstly, that originally FIR No. 382 of September 24, 1990 was recorded against the Petitioner in Police Station, Bhiwani under Sections 307/120-B of the Indian Penal Code he and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act but subsequently Sections 3 and 6 of TADA were also added. The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4338 M of 1991 seeking the quashing of the said FIR. Shri J. C. Sethi, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, had appeared on behalf of the State. He had made a statement before this Court that the local investigating agency had dropped the charge under Section 3/6 of TADA and as such petitioner was not charged under the said Act. On his having made such a statement the counsel for the petitioner held withdrawn the abovesaid criminal miscellaneous petition. According to the learned counsel the said statement of Mr. Sethi was binding on the State and the accusations against the petitioner under Section 3/6 of TADA had been withdrawn, charge under the said section could not be framed against him in order to appreciate this argument, I have carefully examined the order (Annexure P1) date August 30, 1991 passed by this Court. In Crl. Misc. No. 4338-M of 1991. It reads as under :