MAHANT SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who claims himself as Mahant of Dera Bhai Diala Jee, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 23.10.2001, passed by Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, whereby the cancellation report submitted by the police in case F.I.R. No. 17 dated 30.3.2001 under Section 18/61/85 of the N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Dialpura, against the petitioner, was not accepted, and the investigating agency was directed to present the challan in the said case.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that due to the dispute over possession of the land of the Dera, one Santokh Singh, who was having no right over the land of the Dera and wanted to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the land; got lodged the aforesaid F.I.R. against him in connivance with A.S.I. Om Parkash, In-charge Police Post Bhagta Bhai Ka Police Station Dialpura. In the said F.I.R., petitioner was alleged to have been found in possession of 500 grams of opium as well as .315 bore unlicensed revolver. After the investigation, on the representation of the villagers, enquiry of the said case was marked to D.S.P. Crime, who in a thorough enquiry found that a false case was poised upon the petitioner. Therefore, cancellation report was recommended, which was accepted by A.D.G.P. Crime, Punjab as well as S.S.P., Bathinda, and thereafter the cancellation report was submitted to the court, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-4.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that on the basis of the material available on the record, it is for the court to accept or not to accept the cancellation report submitted by the police. The court can accept the report or reject it and order for further investigation. The court itself can take cognizance of the offence, if it prima facie finds the material available on the record against the petitioner, but the court has no jurisdiction while rejecting the cancellation report to direct the prosecuting agency to present challan against the accused. Counsel contends that in this case, Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, has acted illegally and without jurisdiction while directing the prosecution to present the challan against the accused. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.