INDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 389 dtd. 28/10/2020 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sec. 188 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.8, District Ludhiana and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that during patrolling, a secret information has been received by the police to the effect that petitioner has opened a spa center at Aarti Chowk, Near Ghumar Mandi Market and had employed many workers but the petitioner had not got conducted the police verification of any worker, hence violated the order of the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana and committed offence under Sec. 188 of the IPC. Finding the information reliable, FIR was registered and raid was conducted and it was found that the petitioner had kept many workers without police verification. It was also found that one Ranjita alias Khushi alias Disha working as Manager and look after the day to day affairs of the Spa Centre. Subsequently, petitioner and co-accused Ranjita were arrested and bailed out on 30/10/2020 and 8/11/2020 respectively. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared, and same was not presented in Court, as the petitioner and co-accused were not coming along with the Investigating Officer in the trial Court. However, in their absence, the challan under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C was presented in learned trial Court on 22/4/2024.

(3.) It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police at the instance of a secret informer. He contends that except secret information there is nothing on record to corroborate the prosecution story. He contends that as per Sec. 468 of Cr.P.C, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation, the period of limitation shall be six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only, one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and three years. He contends that the present FIR was registered under Sec. 188 of IPC for disobedience of order duly promulgated by a public servant and the punishment prescribed under the said Sec. is simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or with both.