Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Trial Court Order To File Challan Against Cop For Bypassing Mandatory HC Rules
Reiterating the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a trial court's order directing the filing of a challan against a police officer without following the due process laid down in the High Court Rules. The Court observed that any action or criticism against a police officer must strictly comply with Chapter 1, Part H, Rule 6 of the High...
Reiterating the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a trial court's order directing the filing of a challan against a police officer without following the due process laid down in the High Court Rules.
The Court observed that any action or criticism against a police officer must strictly comply with Chapter 1, Part H, Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, which requires forwarding a copy of the judgment to the District Magistrate, who in turn must send it to the Registrar of the High Court, along with a covering letter referencing the Home Secretary's Circular dated 15.04.1936. In the present case, the prescribed procedure was entirely bypassed, rendering the trial court's directive legally unsustainable.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "A perusal of The High Court Rules (Chapter 1 Part H Rule 6) (supra) 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."
The plea was filed by DSP Veer Singh challenging the direction of a Trial Court whereby while convicting the accused persons in a fraud case, the Trial Court directed the Home Secretary Haryana as well as D.G, CID Vigilance to file a challan against the petitioner and further directed to complete the proceedings within two months.
The Trial Court recorded in the conviction order that there were allegations against the police officers including that the petitioner of mercilessly beating the complainant and demanding Rs. 1 lakh, and that despite adequate evidence being available, the police officer failed to file the challan.
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that he directions issued to submit a challan in the impugned judgment are in violations of the High Court Rules (Chapter I Part H Rule 6). It was submitted that the remarks had been made against the petitioner and the other officials without following the principle of audi alteram partem in as much as the petitioner and the other officials were required to be heard before the said directions had been issued.
Reliance was placed on Astha Modi versus State of Haryana and another, (CRM-M-38422-2019) wherein the High Court expunged remarks against an SP observing that "She is not a party to the proceedings, no notice has been issued to her to explain nor has she been afforded with any opportunity of hearing before damning her. The Sessions Court has not adhered to tests laid down by the Apex Court and has made adverse remarks against the petitioner's conduct, which are unwarranted and uncalled for."
Referring to the judgment in State of Punjab and anr versus M/s Shikha Trading Co., 2023 (136) CutLT 739, State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) versus Pankaj Chaudhary and others, 2019(5) RCR (Criminal), Astha Modi versus State of Haryana and another, (CRM-M- 38422-2019 decided on 08.11.2023) and Dr. Mrs. Naresh Saini versus State of Haryana and another, (CRM-M-22310-2014) stating that the same "would show that prior to the taking of any action against any official, he must be given an opportunity of hearing to explain his position."
The same having not been done in the instant case would render the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and others nugatory, remarked the Court.
Justice Bedi opined that even otherwise, if the Trial Court during the course of the Trial of the co-accused had come to a conclusion that the petitioner and others ought to have faced Trial as well, Section 193 Cr.P.C. could have been resorted to at the time of taking cognizance against the co- accused and Section 319 Cr.P.C. could have been resorted to when the prosecution evidence was being recorded. "None of these procedures were adopted by the Trial Court."
In the light of the above, the plea was allowed.
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-15604-2022).
Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1 (in CRM-M-15604-2022) and for the petitioner-State (in CRM-M-53510-2023).
Ms. Sehaj Sandhawalia, Legal Aid Counsel, for respondent No.2.
Title: Veer Singh DSP v. State of Haryana and anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 398