Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Order To Lodge FIR Against Police Officer For Faulty Investigation, Cites Non-Compliance Of HC Rules

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the direction of a trial court to file case against a Police Officer who allegedly conducted faulty investigation in a criminal intimidation case.

Trial Court had, while acquitting the accused persons in the case, said that an unfair and faulty investigation was conducted by both the investigating officers and the SHO concerned, thereby violating the fundamental right to life and liberty of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution and therefore, proceedings ought to be initiated against the officers under Sections 166-A (Public Servant disobeying direction under Law) and 167 of the IPC.

While quashing the FIR against the officer, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed,

"A perusal of The High Court Rules (Chapter 1 Part H Rule 6) would show that if the conduct of police officers and other officers is to be criticized or any action is to be taken against an officer, then the procedure mentioned in Rule 6 is to be followed i.e. a copy of the judgment is required to be sent to District Magistrate who would forward it to the Registrar, High Court, accompanied by a covering letter given in reference to the Home Secretary's Circular dated 15.04.1936."

"No such procedure had been followed in the instant case and the Trial Court while acquitting the accused directed that a copy of the judgment of acquittal containing the observations be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to take legal action against the delinquent officials as per law. This procedure followed by the Trial Court is unknown to law," highlighted the judge.

These observations were made in response to the plea filed by the then SHO of Chandigarh Police Station.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that disparaging remarks passed in the impugned order on the basis of which the subsequent FIR was registered are in violation of the High Court Rules (Chapter 1 Part H Rule 6).

He added that the remarks had been made against the petitioner without following the principle of audi alteram patrem inasmuch as the petitioner was required to be heard before the said remarks had been made pursuant to which the FIR had been registered.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referring to State of Punjab and anr. v. M/s Shikha Trading Co. (2023), State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary and ors (2019) and said, "prior to the taking of any action against any official, he must be given an opportunity of hearing to explain his position."

Justice Bedi opined that, "the same (opportunity of hearing to explain) having not been done in the instant case would render the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and others nugatory."

The Court also found that the direction of the Trial Court to initiate proceedings against the Police officer is in violation of the High Court Rules.

The judge said that the procedure prescribed in the High Court rules were not followed by the Trial Court and the direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to take legal action against the delinquent officials as per law, "is unknown to law."

Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned direction of the trial court and FIR lodged against the police officer, following its order.

Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Toor, Addl.P.P., for U.T., Chandigarh.

 Title: Kirpal Singh Kooner v. State of U.T., Chandigarh and ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 184

Click here to read/download the order