SATISH BHATIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of aforementioned petitions as these involve identical questions of law and facts for adjudication. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CRM -22232 -2013 "Dr.Satish Bhatia and another Vs. State of Haryana and others". The brief backdrop of the case is that FIR No.178 dated 08.06.2007 was registered at Police Station DLF Phase II, Gurgaon for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 415, 468, 471, 34, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') against the accused.

(2.) THE allegations raised against the accused are not relevant for adjudication of the present controversy and therefore, it would be an unnecessary exercise to refer to those facts. On completion of investigation, the police submitted cancellation report dated 02.11.2008 Annexure P7. The complainant(s) filed a protest petition to express grievance against the cancellation report submitted by the investigating agency. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon passed order dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure P9) taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 120 -B IPC, challenged before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'Cr.P.C.') vide Crl.Misc. No.22933 -2011 which came to be dismissed by this Court along with various other petitions on October 05, 2012 (Annexure P13). The order dated 05.10.2012 was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India but the accused were unsuccessful in getting any relief and their petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed on 13.12.2012 (Annexure P15) and as a consequence, the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of offence against the accused was affirmed throughout.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contends that vide order dated 08.03.2011, the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of cancellation report submitted by the police, therefore, the order dated 18.05.2013 calling upon the complainant to adduce pre -charge evidence cannot be allowed to sustain. It is further argued that as the Court has taken cognizance of the offence being a police case, the Court has to follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter XIX Cr.P.C. pertaining to trial of warrant cases by a Magistrate in respect of cases instituted on a police report contained in part A thereof under Sections 238 to 243. The mere fact that the complainant filed a protest petition against the cancellation report cannot be construed to mean that the Court has taken cognizance of the offence otherwise than on a police report warranting procedure laid down in Part B of Chapter XIX under Sections 244 to 247 Cr.P.C. to be followed. It is submitted that order dated 18.05.2013 may be set aside and the trial Court may be directed to proceed with the case in accordance with procedure contemplated in Part A of Chapter XIX Cr.P.C.