JAGMAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer made in this petition is for issuing appropriate direction to the respondents, namely, State of Punjab for re-investigation of case FIR No. 66 dated 15.8.2000 registered under Sections 418, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Malout, District Muktsar by some independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation etc.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant lodged FIR No. 66 dated 15.8.2000 under Sections 418, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against the petitioner who has been working as Naib Tehsildar alleging that at the time of sanctioning of the mutation regarding inheritance of Ganda Singh deceased, his wife and two sons, namely, Chanan Kaur, Balbir Singh and Bakhshish Singh were alive. However, the mutation was not sanctioned in their favour. During investigation, it has been found that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR were false. The wife of deceased Ganda Singh was in fact not alive and Balbir Singh and Bakshish Singh are the brother's sons of Ganda Singh and not the sons of Ganda Singh. The aforementioned findings of the investigation have also been accepted by the District Attorney. Despite the investigation and the opinion of the District Attorney expressed on 8.6.2000, FIR No. 66 was registered on 15.8.2000. The petitioner has also alleged that FIR No. 34 dated 26.3.2002 was registered against the complainant by one Harbans Singh with whom the complainant is having litigation. It is further asserted that Anti Fraud Squad, Muktsar has investigated the case FIR No. 66 dated 15.8.2000 and in its report dated 16.9.2000 submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police Muktsar, the petitioner has been found to be innocent and it has been recommended that the FIR be cancelled. However, the complainant further filed an application for conducting an enquiry in the matter and the Superintendent of Police (S), Muktsar after holding the enquiry has ordered the filing of challan against the petitioner. His opinion is alleged to be based on mere perusal of the file, on the basis of which he has made recommendation concluding that it was a fit case for filing the challan.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Naib Tehsildar as Presiding Officer has acted in accordance with law and all his actions are protected under the law. According to the learned counsel if the investigation is directed to be conducted by an independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation, the truth will come out and the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police (S), Muktsar for filing the challan would be found absolutely baseless.