RAMESH CHANDER VASHISHTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A report under sections 420/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against the petitioner by his brother -in -law (sister's husband) Shri O.P. Sharma, I.P.S. The case against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections was registered on 23.3.1974. The allegations in the F.I.R. were that the petitioner had withdrawn the amount of National Saving Certificates which were originally in the name of Smt. Sumitra Devi wife of Shri O.P. Sharma which Shri O.P. Sharma subsequently got transferred to his own name after death of his wife. During investigation it was found that in fact Shri O.P. Sharma himself had withdrawn the money on 8.3.1969 and a false report was made by him against his brother -in -law since relations between them became strained. Consequently, the police made a report under section 169 read with section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of the first information report and also recommended that the proceedings under section 182 I.P.C. be initiated against Shri O.P. Sharma, the complainant.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate, after considering the whole matter accepted the report of the police for cancellation of the case against the petitioner by a detailed order dated 17.7.1980. However, he did not start proceedings under section 182 I.P.C. because he found that the report had not been made on a proper form. On 1.10.1982, on the same facts, the police filed fresh challan against the petitioner after a lapse of more than two years. Mr. Hari Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon Kamalapati Trivedi v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 S.C. 777 and Namasivayam v. State, 1982 Crl. L.J. 707, wherein it has been held that the order of the Magistrate accepting the report for cancellation of the case, is a judicial order, which becomes final. It is not open to the investigating agency to reinvestigate the case and submit a challan on the same facts. Mr. H.S. Bajwa, learned counsel for the State has not been able to cite any authority to the contrary inspite of the fact that he got an adjournment for the purpose. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, I think the proceedings now initiated by the police have to be quashed. I order accordingly. Order accordingly.