TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1602
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sections 306, 384, 506 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Airport, Amritsar (Annexure P-1); and/or in the alternative; For directing stay of investigation in case FIR No. 1 dated 03.01.2018 registered under Sections 306, 384, 506 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Airport, Amritsar (Annexure P-1), qua the petitioner; AND/OR in the alternative; For quashing the Investigation conducted in case FIR No. 1 dated 03.01.2018 registered under Sections 306, 384, 506 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Airport, Amritsar (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings, qua the petitioner in terms of the statutory bar and mandate of Section 16 of the Punjab State Commission for Non-Resident Indians Act, 2011 as well as on merits. 3. First and foremost, let us have a look at the impugned FIR, relevant extract, thereof is as under: "Statement of Prabhjeet Singh S/o Inderjit Singh Chadha, resident of 506 Green Avenue Enclave Amrtisar, aged about 27 years stated that I am resident of the above mentioned address. Today on 03.01.2018 my mother called me at about 2PM and told me that the driver Raj Kumar @ Raju had called her and told that so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posted after obtaining stay from Judge and the High Court judge does not show much concern after hearing the same. The pattern is the same NRI Commission. There she has Chatopadya here the judge himself." Note dated 02.06.2016 "This may be treated as my final suicide note... There is a particular officer (IPS) Chattopadya who has gone out of his way to help Kay in her illegal activities. Only God knows why. Now Judge Amit Rawal in spite of knowing everything is extending patronages to her openly in the court. God bless India, with such judges around you do not need criminals." The aforesaid diary entries, suicide notes are though stated to have been written by the deceased in the months of April, May and June 2016 and the deceased committed suicide on 03.01.2018, after a lapse of more than year and a half. No doubt the petitioner has been named by the deceased alleging that he was hand in glove with the persons who were tarnishing the reputation of the deceased. To say, that the same is either an immediate cause of the deceased taking extreme step of committing suicide or otherwise should be contributory factor, is though highly doubtful, but be that as it may,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or to a Retired Judge of this Court. Pursuant thereto, a Division Bench of this court passed an order dated 06.04.2018(Annexure P-4), directing that the investigation of the said FIR (No. 1 dated 03.01.2018) qua the petitioner shall remain stayed. 5.5. The aforesaid interim order remained in force till final disposal of CWP No. 20359 of 2013 vide judgment/order dated 15.09.2023(Annexure P-6). Para 60 of the order ibid, being relevant is as under: "Keeping in view the fact that the reports were submitted way- back, we are also of the view that the stay granted in favour of Mr. Chattopadhyaya at that point of time on 06.04.2018 was only an interim measure adopted due to the impression given to the Co-ordinate Bench that he was being hounded at that point of time by his seniors. Much water has now flown since the stay was granted and the fact that two of the officers have already superannuated and the third is no longer in the State of Punjab. We therefore, accept the argument of Mr. Dhuriwala that the stay of the investigation cannot continue in perpetuity in FIR No.1 dated 12.02.2015 lodged at Police Station Airport, Amritsar since on account of an interim order, the Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also found mentioned in the suicide notes of deceased Inderpreet Singh Chadha, were found innocent in the case FIR No. 1 dated 03.01.2018. 9. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, petitioner has been falsely dragged in the impugned FIR, at the behest of certain senior officer, to desist him at the relevant time, from holding an independent and fair inquiry into the nexus between the law enforcing agencies and the drug peddlers, wherein the names of senior police officers were also emerging. 9.1. He also contends that the stand taken by the respondent State in several proceedings including the Public Interest Litigation before this Court, ex facie reflects that the intentions are to implicate the petitioner in the said FIR No. 1 dated 03.01.2018, with the underlined purpose to curtail his liberties. 10. He would also argue that the petitioner is not even named in the FIR and is thus innocent. His arrest without a reasonable prior notice would mean huge humiliation and harassment, mar his social image and deprive him of his liberty and dignity. 11. Learned State counsel would per contra argue that, even though the petitioner is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench of this Court. The Division Bench order dated 15.09.2013 (Annexure P-6) has now paved way for further investigation in the case qua the petitioner. Questionnaire for his interrogation has been prepared and he is yet to be interrogated. 12.3. At this nascent stage of investigation qua the petitioner, I do not consider it appropriate to go into the merits of and to comment upon the aforesaid other submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner endeavouring to show that the petitioner is innocent, but yet is being/or has been dragged into the FIR in question and to pass any order for or against the quashing of the FIR itself. That, however, does not prevent this Court from dealing with and deciding the petitioner's prayer for grant of a prior notice before arrest. 13. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980)2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465], a constitution bench of the Apex Court inter alia held that the filing of a first information report is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the power under Section 438 (for the grant of anticipatory bail). This legal position is not disputed. As already noted, in present case, the petitioner is not named as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../or SIT or any other police officials against arrest of the petitioner come what may, nor is this Court passing any such order. 15.1. Learned AG also fairly stated that as on today petitioner is not an accused in the FIR in question. But, he also took strong objection that the petitioner is not letting the investigation proceed further by not responding to the questionnaire, which was served him on way back in 2018. As regards his not responding to questionnaire, despite it's being served in 2018, I find that there is justifiable reasons on the part of the petitioner. As already noted herein above, vide an order dated 06.04.2018 passed by Division Bench, further investigation qua the petitioner was stayed. It is only after the said interim order was vacated that it now turns on the petitioner to respond to the questionnaire. Being so, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be faulted for deliberately not co-operating with the investigating team, when the investigation against him was stayed by virtue of interim order passed by Division Bench. 15.2. In the premise, petitioner is directed to forthwith join the investigation. He shall also respond to the questionnaire (A....