Appeal
- The challenge by means of this appeal is to an order dated 23rd March, 2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the Criminal Revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Special Judge, Bathinda dated 05.03.2018 allowing the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 summoning the appellant along with three other officials of the Police Department has been dismissed.
Petition filed under section 319 cr.p.c
3.4. In the trial, the informant Puneet Miglani was first examined as PW1 on 26.05.2014.
3.5. 29.09.2014 coincidentally happened to be the date in both the trials i.e. trial arising out of FIR No.91/2012 against Devraj and also the trial arising out of FIR No.11/2013 against Head Constable Kikkar Singh. The appellant proceeded to depose, supporting the prosecution case as also the investigation carried out by him against Devraj. On the said date in the trial against Head Constable Kikkar Singh, informant in that case Puneet Miglani gave further evidence as PW 1. On the said date he completed his examination-in-chief as also the cross examination. Additionally, he kept an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ready for summoning the appellant and the three other police officials, and filed the same before the Court.
Petition dismissed by Trial court and allowed by High court
- The Trial Court, vide order dated 08.09.2016 rejected the said application on the ground of lack of sanction under the PC Act as also Cr.P.C. The said order was challenged before the High Court successfully and the High Court, by order dated 23.01.2018, remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for passing a fresh order ignoring the issue of sanction. The High Court was of the view that no sanction was required. Pursuant to the remand, the Trial Court, by order dated 05.03.2018 allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the four police officials, viz. (i) Janak Singh, Dy.S.P., (ii) Gurdev Sigh Bhalla,, Inspector (appellant), (iii) H.C. Harjinder Singh and (iv) H.C. Rajwant Singh. The said order of 05.03.2018 was challenged by the appellant before the High Court primarily on the following grounds by way of criminal revision:
(i) The order of the Trial Court was not in accordance to the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014(1) RCR 623] for summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C.;
(ii) It was a pressure tactic on the part of the informant Puneet Miglani to brow-beat the appellant as he had deposed against his father Devraj;
(iii) The informant Puneet Miglani was a convict in another case and, therefore, no reliance ought to have been placed on his statement; and lastly,
(iv) The order passed by the Trial Court was bad on merits as there was no evidence at all for passing the summoning order.
- The High Court, as narrated earlier, by the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2023 dismissed the said revision.
Apex court stated that witnesses statements recorded under section .161 cr.p.c is in line with their previous statements
- Having considered the submissions and having perused the material on record, it is quite apparent that the informant Puneet Miglani, in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 22.09.2013, had narrated complete facts with respect to the conduct of the police officials immediately after the surrender of his father on 30.08.2013 in the case registered against him for mis-appropriation. The consistent case right from that stage till the statement was recorded during the trial on a number of occasions, the informant has supported the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Even Devraj and Eshaa Miglani in their statements recorded during investigation on 15.10.2013 and 22.10.2013 respectively, have given the same details as narrated by the informant Puneet Miglani on 22.09.2013. Further their statements during trial also supports and is in line with their previous statement. All these witnesses have equivocally narrated the incidents that took place at different places regarding threats, demand of huge sum of money, torture of Devraj etc.
- We have perused the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as also the depositions of PW-1, PW-13 and PW-18. The parameters laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (supra) stand fully satisfied. We are refraining ourselves from commenting on the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. being submitted only charging Kikkar Singh to be sent for trial.
-
In view of the discussion made above, there appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case as against the appellant. We, accordingly, are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Parties
GURDEV SINGH BHALLA …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (120/2024) (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 11654/2023)- JANUARY 05, 2024 – 2024 INSC 22
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/31143/31143_2023_8_1501_49162_Judgement_05-Jan-2024.pdf
Gurdev Singh Bhalla vs. State of Punjab & ors – 31143_2023_8_1501_49162_Judgement_05-Jan-2024
Further study
section 319 Cr.P.C – Summoning of accused after the pronouncement – Whether valid?
Section 319 – power of summoning – explained
Dismissal of petition under section 319 cr.p.c
