LAWS(P&H)-2006-11-83

A.C. JAGGI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On November 21, 2006
A.C. Jaggi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. Nos. 69710-M of 2005 and 42960-M of 2005, as these petitions arise from the same impugned proceedings.

(2.) A brief narrative of the present controversy, would be appropriate.

(3.) WHILE working as Branch Manager, Rayya, District Amritsar, a complaint was received against respondent No. 2, with respect to irregularities in the settlement of a claim. After a thorough investigation, the allegations were found to be prima facie correct and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 2. A charge-sheet was served and an enquiry ensued. An enquiry report dated 12.6.2001 was submitted. The company circulated a list of officers with doubtful integrity. Respondent No. 2's name figured at Sr. No. 4. In the meanwhile, FIR No. 49 dated 30.9.2001 was registered against respondent No. 2, under Sections 411, 295-A IPC at Police Station, Nurpur Bedi, Distt. Ropar. Respondent No. 2 was arrested and eventually released on bail. As a result of his arrest, he was placed under suspension. Disciplinary proceedings concluded with the stoppage of one increment, a minor punishment. Respondent No. 2's appeal against punishment was dismissed. He filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 23.8.2004 before the Illaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana. In the complaint, respondent No. 2 prayed for directions to be issued to Police Station, Model Town, Ludhiana, to register a criminal case against the accused named in the complaint. The Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide order dated 23.8.2004 ordered the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Station, Model Town, Ludhiana, to conduct investigation and submit a report within two months. The police presented an enquiry report dated 16.11.2004. Vide order dated 11.4.2005, the Magistrate directed respondent No. 2, to lead preliminary evidence. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, respondent No. 2 preferred a revision, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.