ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Under the Compulsory Internship Programme-2022 of 9th Semester students of UILS, PU,
Chandigarh, I got an opportunity to work under the able guidance of Adv. Anil Kumar Rana,
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. The duration of this internship programme was
from 16th August, 2021 to 30th September, 2021. During this period, I was lucky enough to
understand the integrities of the litigation. Day to day attendance of court helped me to
understand the various aspects of procedural law. I got to learn about the entire conspectus of
online filing, hearing and disposal of cases.
At the office I was entrusted with task of observing, researching and learning the basics of
law, reading case files and making summaries of the case. Useful insights provided by the Sir
helped me to get hold of the basic intricacies of the law. I came to learn about the practical
aspects of the legal practise which is nowhere provided in black & white. I also honed my
skill of case finding and analytical research.
I would like to express my sincere respect and gratitude to Sir who supported me and has
given his valuable suggestions from time to time which were beneficial to me for the framing
of this report on time. I came to know about so many new things and all the credit goes to Sir
who gave me the golden opportunity to intern under him. The exclusive guidance and
supervision by my professor through the course of the internship helped me a lot.

1 | Page
 INDEX

SR. TITLE OF THE CASE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE PAGE.

NO. NO.

CRIMINAL CASES

1. Lalit Kumar Jha V. State CRM-M_31710_2021 3-8

of Punjab

2. Tarun Kumar V. State of CRM-M-29949-2021 9-12

Haryana

CIVIL CASES
3. Meenu V. Manish Kumar TA-566-2021 (O&M) 13-14

4. Ram Dev Singh v. CR-1939-2021 15-16

Rupinder Kaushal &
Anr.

CONSTITUTIONAL CASES
5. Inspector Satwant Singh CRM-M_31710_2021 17-20
V. State of Punjab & Ors.

2 | Page
 CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1

Lalit Kumar Jha V. State of Punjab

[CRM-M_31710_2022]
1. CASE NATURE: Criminal
2. PARTIES NAME: Lalit Kumar Jha (Petitioner)
State of Punjab (Respondent)
3. RELIEF SOUGHT: Anticipatory Bail.
4. PRESENTED BEFORE: Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
5. JUDGE: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Suvir Sehgal
6. CASE STATUS: Pending
7. DATE OF ORDER: August 18, 2022
8. ADVOCATE: Mr. Anil Kumar Rana- appearing on behalf of the Petitioner (Lalit
Kumar Jha).

PROVISION OF LAW: Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

1) 2002 Late Sh. Baldev Krishan Sharma a retired army official after being approached
by the representatives of Sahara India Pariwar in the year 2002 invested Rs. 3 Lac in
their township project to be developed in Ludhiana and booked one plot and one shop
in the said township project.
2) 2008 Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing
Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Saharas’ for
short) invited and claim to have collected deposits from general public including
cobblers, labourers, artisans and peasants in the form of what were described as
‘Optional Fully Convertible Debentures’ (OFCD).
3) SIRECL then in April 2008, circulated IM along with the application forms to its so-
called friends, associated group companies, workers/employees and other individuals
associated with Sahara Group for subscribing to the OFCDs by way of private
placement.
4) 2009 Lalit Kumar Jha came to the house of the complainant Late Sh. Baldev Krishan
Sharma and informed that township project could not succeed but instead of refund of
money with interest their company is offering reinvestment of the principal amount
along with interest in the newly established Sahara Real Estate Corporation Ltd.

3 | Page
5) Late Sh. Baldev Krishan Sharma being an army man didn’t know any treachery or
deceit and believed every word of Lalit Kumar Jha as true and following Lalit Kumar
Jha reinvested the principal amount along with interest and further invested 3 lac
more from his life savings. Lalit Kumar Jha promised that the complainant would get
18 lac on maturity date in 2019 i.e. after 10 years from the initial date in 2009.
6) 2009-2010 On a complaint received from Professional Group of Investors Protection,
SEBI found that the mobilisation of funds under the Red Herring Prospectus (RHP)
issued by the two companies was not legally permissible.
7) By an ad interim ex parte order dated 24th November, 2010 SEBI directed Saharas
not to offer their equity shares/OFCDs or any other securities to the public or invite
subscription in any manner whatsoever either directly or indirectly pending further
orders finding the issuance of OFCDs illegal and violative of the prevalent law.
8) 2011 Aggrieved by the said order Saharas approached the High Court at Bombay
but the High Court not only declined to interfere with the directions issued by SEBI
but also passed a further order on 23rd June, 2011, directing the promoter Mr.
Subrata Roy Sahara and Directors Miss Vandana Bhargava, Mr. Ravi Shankar Dubey
and Mr. Ashok Roy Choudhary of Saharas to jointly and severely refund the amount
collected by Saharas in terms of the RHPs issued by them along with interest @
15% p.a. from the date of the receipt of the deposits till the date of such repayment.
9) 2011 Pursuant thereto the SEBI ordered that Sahara Commodity Services Corporation
Limited (earlier known as SIRECL) and SHICL shall not access the security market
for raising funds till the time the aforesaid payments are not made to the satisfaction
of the SEBI.
10) 2011 Aggrieved by the order aforementioned, Saharas filed an appeal before the
Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) who concurred with the view taken by the SEBI,
and while affirming the order passed by the SEBI, directed Saharas to refund the
amount collected from the investors within a period of six weeks.
11) Appeals were then preferred by Saharas against the above orders in which Hon’ble
the Supreme Court by an order dated 28th November, 2011 extended the period for
making the refund upto 9th January, 2012.
12) 2012 Lalit Kumar Jha and Arun Kumar Shrivastava came to the complainant and with
evil intentions without disclosing the orders of the Apex court directing their company
to return the amount to the investors, in order to defraud the complainant who was a
senior citizen ailing from many diseases asked him to reinvest the amount in Sahara Q
shop Unique Products Rage Ltd. They told the complainant that Sahara Real Estate
had been closed and that on reinvestment they would get the maturity amount of 18
lac in 2018 instead of 2019. Complainant left with no other option fell in the trap of
Lalit Kumar Jha who were actually deceiving the complainant so that he doesn’t get
refund as per the Supreme Court Orders. Lalit Kumar Jha as introducer got issued
new receipts in the month of May 2012 and September 2012 bearing title of Sahara Q
shop.
13) 2012 The Apex Court finally disposed of the appeals by an order dated 31st August,
2012 and while doing so modified the order passed by the SEBI and the SAT and

4 | Page
 directed Saharas to deposit with the SEBI the amount collected by them through
their RHPs together with interest @ 15% p.a. within a period of three months.
14) SEBI was given the task of identifying subscribers who had invested the money
on the basis of RHPs dated 13.3.2008 and 16.10.2009 and refund the amount to
them with interest on their production of relevant documents
15) 2012-2013 SEBI then filed Contempt Petitions against SAHARA for non-compliance
of the directions.
16) On 21.11.2013 Hon’ble the Supreme Court ordered that, “Sahara Group of
Companies shall not part with any movable and immovable properties until
further orders.”
17) 06.02.2018 Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 06.02.2018 had rejected the
registration of Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Under Multi State
Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 as number of regular complaints were being received
by SEBI, RBI, and Ministry of Finance and other govt. bodies regarding non-payment
of maturity payments to a number of investors.
18) 2018 On maturity of the deposit receipts in May 2018 and September 2018 issued in
the year 2012, complainant approached Lalit Kumar Jha for redemption of the same
and payment of maturity amount. Real brother of Vijay Kumar Jha claiming to
represent his brother Lalit Kumar Jha said that a matter of Sahara Q Shop Unique
Products Range Limited is pending in the Supreme Court and said that principal
amount cannot be paid.
19) When the complainant disagreed and demanded complete maturity amount of 18 lac,
he very cleverly in furtherance of a pre-planned controversy with his brother Lalit
Kumar Jha asked the complainant that no matter is pending against Humara
India Credit Cooperative Society Limited and only way to get complete money is
to shift the amount in that company and get the complete amount of maturity which
will be around 25 lacs in September 2020 and it will not take more than 15-20 days to
get the amount encashed.
20) 05.06.2020 The complainant moved the present complaint against all the accused who
in conspiracy with each other were intentionally harassing the complainant and had
defrauded him of hi hard earned life savings and he was not even getting proper
treatment because of paucity of funds.
21) 02.07.2020 During pendency of enquiry before EO wing Ludhiana the accused sent
their zonal manager Anil Kumar Shrivastva who agreed to make complete payment
till December 2020 but in two instalments a sum of Rs. 6,80,000/- was only paid to
the complainant. And thereafter more instalments were paid and a total of 11,93,000/-
stands paid. Interestingly no order of supreme court stopped the accused from making
the abovesaid payment.

ISSUES INVOLVED:
1) Whether anticipatory bail be granted to the Applicant or not?

COURT’S ORDER:

5 | Page
“The petitioner shall join the investigation and would come present as and when called for
and in the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on his furnishing personal and
surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Investigating Officer. He shall also abide by the
conditions as specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. To be heard alongwith CRM-M-29996
of 2022 (in which co-accused Vijay Kumar Jha has been granted anticipatory bail) on 11th
November 2022.

CASES RESEARCHED:
1) Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v Ashis Chatterjee
(2010) 14 SCC 496 held that “It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere
with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused.
However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down
in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among
other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an
application for bail are:
i. whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that
the accused had committed the offence;
ii. nature and gravity of the accusation;
iii. severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
iv. danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
v. character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
vi. likelihood of the offence being repeated;
vii. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
viii. danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

… It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these

relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order
would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be
illegal…”
2) Hon’ble the Bombay High Court in Sameer Sudhir Joshi vs State of Maharashtra
2015 (3) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 97 a case involving similar allegations wherein the accused
despite knowing the bad financial condition of the company allured investors to invest
in the company promising great returns and defrauded the investors. The High Court
while considering the bail held that if the accused was released on bail there are
chances that he might once again repeat his effort to influence the minds of investors
and impact the prosecution.
3) Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court also in Jasdeep Singh Bains vs State of
Union Territory, Chandigarh 2004 CriLJ 2318 held that accused had collected funds
from the general public by luring them and if released on he would be encouraged to
indulge in the same activities.

6 | Page
CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
1) Late Sh. Baldev Krishan Sharma being an army man didn’t know any treachery or
deceit and believed every word of Lalit Kumar Jha as true and following Lalit Kumar
Jha invested and reinvested money as per his assistance and guidance.
2) Fraudulent intentions of the applicant appear prima facie in this case twice- once in
the year 2012 and again in 2018.
3) In 2012 when Lalit Kumar Jha and Arun Kumar Shrivastava came to the complainant,
the orders of the Apex court had come which directed their company to return the
amount to the investors.
⇨ But instead of sharing and disclosing the orders of the Apex Court and in
order to defraud the complainant who was a senior citizen ailing from many
diseases asked him to reinvest the amount in Sahara Q shop Unique Products
Rage Ltd.
⇨ They told the complainant that Sahara Real Estate had been closed and that on
reinvestment they would get the maturity amount of 18 lac in 2018 instead of
2019.
⇨ Complainant left with no other option fell in the trap of Lalit Kumar Jha who
were actually deceiving the complainant so that he doesn’t get refund as per
the Supreme Court Orders.
⇨ Lalit Kumar Jha as introducer got issued new receipts in the month of May
2012 and September 2012 bearing title of Sahara Q shop.
⇨ The Apex Court finally disposed of the appeals by an order dated 31st
August, 2012 and while doing so modified the order passed by the SEBI and
the SAT and directed Saharas to deposit with the SEBI the amount
collected by them through their RHPs together with interest @ 15% p.a.
within a period of three months.
⇨ SEBI was given the task of identifying subscribers who had invested the
money on the basis of RHPs dated 13.3.2008 and 16.10.2009 and refund the
amount to them with interest on their production of relevant documents’
⇨ SEBI refunded money of many investors on production of documents of their
investments in Sahara Real Estate.

7 | Page
 ⇨ But Mr. Baldev Singh could not derive any benefit from the decision of the
Apex Court as by this time Mr. Lalit Kumar Jha’s evil, fraudulent advice
already made him invest in Sahara Q Shop.
4) In 2018, Mr. Baldev Singh once again became a victim of Lalit Kumar Jha’s fraud.
⇨ 06.02.2018 Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies had rejected the
registration of Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. under Multi State
Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 as number of regular complaints were being
received by SEBI, RBI, and Ministry of Finance and other govt. bodies regarding
nonpayment of maturity payments to a number of investors.
⇨ On maturity of the deposit receipts in May 2018 and September 2018 issued in
the year 2012, complainant approached Lalit Kumar Jha for redemption of the
same and payment of maturity amount. Real brother of Vijay Kumar Jha
claiming to represent his brother Lalit Kumar Jha said that a matter of Sahara Q
Shop Unique Products Range Limited is pending in the Supreme Court and
said that principal amount cannot be paid. (No such matter was ever pending in
the Hon’ble Supreme Court.)
⇨ When the complainant disagreed and demanded complete maturity amount of 18
lac, he very cleverly in furtherance of a pre-planned controversy with his brother
Lalit Kumar Jha asked the complainant that no matter is pending against
Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited and only way to get
complete money is to shift the amount in that company and get the complete
amount of maturity which will be around 25 lacs in September 2020 and it will
not take more than 15-20 days to get the amount encashed. (Whereas the
Society’s registration was rejected under Multi State Cooperative Societies Act,
2002)
5) It is very pertinent to note here that since the year 2012 the accused had personally in
conspiracy with each other defrauded and cheated the complainant in the face of
directions of the Hon’ble Court, the default of payment no doubt has been committed
by Sahara group but the accused are personally liable for alluring the complainant by
making false promises and defrauding him.
6) The complainant who was an army official could not win the war of his life as his
hard-earned life savings were embezzled by the accused by intentionally defrauding
him and not releasing the amount in time and as a result because of lack of funds the
complainant died as result of lack of better medical care on 02.04.2021. The accused
are not only responsible for defrauding and cheating and innocent person but are also
responsible for the death of Late Sh. Baldev Krishan Sharma because had he received
his hard-earned life savings in time, he would have received better medical care and
would have been present to bless his children.
7) In my opinion, bail should not have been granted in the following matter as the
accused had collected funds from the general public by luring them and if released on,
he would be encouraged to indulge in the same activities. In the present case, despite

8 | Page
 knowing the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2012 and knowing the rejection of
registration to the Cooperative Society in 2018; Lalit Kumar Jha allured investors to
invest in the company promising great returns and defrauded the investors. If such
people are released on bail, then there are chances that they might once again repeat
his effort to influence the minds of investors.

CIVIL CASE NO. 1

Meenu V. Manish Kumar [TA-566-2021 (O&M)]

1. CASE NATURE: Civil
2. PARTIES NAME: Meenu (Petitioner)
Manish Kumar (Respondent)
3. RELIEF SOUGHT: Withdrawal and transfer of Petition under S.24, CPC.
4. PRESENTED BEFORE: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
5. JUDGE: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Anil Kshetarpal.
6. STATUS: Decided.
7. DATE OF DECISION: 23.07.2022.
8. ADVOCATE: Mr. Anil Kumar Rana- appearing on behalf of the Petitioner (Meenu).

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

1. The Parties got married on 29th April, 2005
2. The present petition was filed by Ms. Meenu, seeking, under S.24, CPC, the Withdrawal
and transfer of Petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights filed by her husband (Manish
Kumar) at Family Court, Ambala u/S.9, HMA.
3. LITIGATION CHRONOLOGY:
i. On 15th December, 2020: The petitioner filed a petition u/S.125, CrPC claiming
Maintenance from her husband at Family Court, Nabha.
ii. On 1st March, 2021: The husband, as a counterblast, filed the petition u/S.9, HMA at
Family Court, Ambala.
iii. On 5th July, 2021: The petitioner-wife filed the present petition u/S.24, CPC to
withdraw and transfer the Petition filed by husband to Nabha.
4. The petitioner claimed that she was harassed by her Mother-in-law and Sister-in-law for
not having brought enough dowry.
5. She also claimed to have been repeatedly cursed for giving birth to a girl child.
6. Grounds For Transfer of petition u/S.9 of the Hindu Marriage from the Family Court,
Ambala:
i. That the petitioner was an unemployed lady without any means of earning.
ii. The parents of the petitioner were not well off enough to pay for the travel expenses
required to visit Ambala.

9 | Page
 iii. That the petitioner had a 10 years old minor daughter under her care & protection and
there was no one else in the family of petitioner to take care of her.
iv. It being next to impossible for the petitioner to travel alone with her daughter to
Ambala for effectively defending the case filed by the respondent.
v. That respondent was not paying any maintenance to petitioner or her daughter despite
this being an admitted fact that since July 2020, the petitioner had been forced to live
with her parents.
vi. That petition u/S.125, CrPC was already pending before the competent court at Nabha
& the respondent could have appeared there and requested for mediation or filed a
petition u/S.9, Hindu Marriage Act at Nabha or accepted the requests of petitioner &
her family to take her back.
vii. The petition u/S.9 HMA was a mere counter blast & has been used as tool to harass
the petitioner as the respondent sought restitution of conjugal rights only after
petitioner demanded maintenance.
viii. That the respondent was earning handsomely from diverse sources of income.

7. The case had been called out twice but the counsel representing the respondent did not
show up and the hon’ble High Court passed ex-parte order thereupon.
JUDGMENT:
1. The hon’ble High Court, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed and
ordered the proceedings in the petition filed under Section 9, HMA pending in the Court
of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambala, to be transferred to the Court of competent
jurisdiction at Nabha, District Patiala.
2. The hon’ble High Court thence directed the transferor court to remit the file of the case to
the transferee court forthwith.
3. The hon’ble High Court further directed the parties through their counsel to appear before
the Family Court, Nabha on 11th October, 2021.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
I found this order of the hon’ble High Court of allowing the Transfer of the concerned
petition was apt and based upon sound legal principles, as have been laid down under S.24,
CPC.
Moreover, the petitioner wife had been able to prove, prima facie, the burden of proof on her,
as had been laid down in the case of Anandita Das V. Srijit Das (2006, SC), that:
a) If the suit is not transferred, she will suffer irreparable loss.
b) If the suit is transferred, the Respondent will not any suffer irreparable loss.

10 | Page
 CIVIL CASE NO. 2

Ram Dev Singh v. Rupinder Kaushal & Anr.

[CR-1939-2021]

1. CASE NATURE: Civil

2. PARTIES NAME: Ram Dev Singh (Petitioner)
Rupinder Kaushal (Respondent 1)
Ranjit Singh (Respondent 2)
3. RELIEF SOUGHT: Revision of the petition under Article 227 of the constitution
4. PRESENTED BEFORE: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
5. STATUS: Pending
6. ADVOCATE: Mr. Anil Kumar Rana- appearing on behalf of the Respondent 1
(Rupinder Kaushal)

RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW:

Article 227 of the constitution

Section 115 of C.P.C.
Order 21 Rule 103

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

1.) The present revision petition was filed by Mr. Ram Dev Singh under Article 227 of
the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by Ld. Executing
Court Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Nabha, by which the objections filed by the
petitioner under section 47, order 21 rule 97,99,100 and 101 of C.P.C. Have been
dismissed.

2.) A shop was being run by the petitioner Ram Dev Singh and his father Jeet Singh,
which was in equal ownership of Ram Dev Singh and his brother Ranjit Singh. They
both agreed to sell the said shop to respondent Rupinder Kaushal via an agreement
dated 18.01.2012 which was to be executed on 31.12.2012.

3.) Ram Dev Singh executed his share of the sale deed on 26.12.2012 but Ranjit Singh

11 | Page
 refused to execute his share of the sale deed on 31.12.2012. Therefore, Rupinder
Kaushal filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.01.2012.

4.) The above said suit came to be decreed in favour of Rupinder Kaushal vide judgement
and decree dated 18.07.2017 and after this, Rupinder Kaushal filed for execution
application against Ranjit Singh before the Ld. Executing Court at Nabha for
execution and registration of sale deed and putting physical and actual possession of
the shop with Rupinder Kaushal which was awarded to Rupinder Kaushal.

5.) As, the petitioner Ram Dev Singh came to know about the execution petition and also
of taking possession of the shop in dispute, he filed for third party objections under
section 47, order 21 rule 97,99,100 and 101 of C.P.C. On 08.03.2019, in which he
alleged that he has been the tenant of Rupinder Kaushal since he executed his share of
sale deed (26.12.2012) and is in possession of the whole shop. Therefore, he could not
be evicted from the shop following the execution petition filed by Rupinder Kaushal.

6.) The said objection petition filed by Petitioner Ram Dev Singh was dismissed vide
order dated 31.08.2022 by the Ld. Executing court. Therefore, Ram Dev Singh
(claiming to be insane) filed revision petition through his wife and guardian Smt.
Prabhjot Kaur under Article 227 of the constitution in the Hon'ble Punjab and
Haryana H.C.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:

1.) Adv. Anil Kumar Rana, Counsel for the respondent contested the claim of insanity by
the petitioner.
The proof of insanity given by the petitioner was a certificate issued by a panel of
doctors of P.G.I dated 18.02.2000. But the petitioner himself has contested many suits
against his brother Ranjit Singh and his father Jeet Singh in the year 2013 himself.
Furthermore, he himself executed his half of the sale deed in favour of the respondent
on 26.12.2012.

2.) Further, a revision petition under Article 227 of the constitution can only be filed if no
other effective legal remedy is available.
In this case, another effective legal remedy is available when we see order 21 rule 103
and section 115(2) of C.P.C.
Order 21 Rule 103 clearly states that if any application is adjudicated upon under
order 21 rule 98 or rule 100, the order made thereon shall have the same force of a
decree and be subject to same conditions as to an appeal, and,
Section 115(2) states that High Court shall not vary or reverse any decree or order
against which an appeal lies either to High Court or to any court subordinate thereto.

12 | Page
 3.) Therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner through his guardian under
Article 227 of the constitution is not maintainable.

AFTER ARGUING FOR SOME TIME, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
SEEKED ADJOURNMENT AND THE CASE HAS BEEN ADJOURNED TO 22.02.2023.

CONSTITUTIONAL CASE NO. 1

Inspector Satwant Singh V. State of Punjab and Others

[CRM-M_31710_2021]
9. CASE NATURE: Writ Petition
10. RELIEF SOUGHT: Writ of Mandamus
11. PRESENTED BEFORE: Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
12. CASE NUMBER: Civil Writ Petition-19214 of 2021
13. CASE STATUS: Sub Judice
14. JUDGE: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish Agnihotri
15. Date of Order: 24.09.2021

PROVISION OF LAW: Article 226 of the Constitution of India

RELIEF SOUGHT:

1) CWP has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ
in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to adjourn the departmental
inquiry sine die till the conclusion of the Prosecution evidence in the FIR (on the basis
of which departmental inquiry has been initiated on the same facts) which violates the
principles of natural justice.
2) The departmental proceedings may kindly be stayed in the interest of justice.
3) For issuance of any other writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

13 | Page
 1) 1998. The Petitioner (Satwant Singh) was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector
Punjab Police.
2) 2008. Petitioner was promoted as S.I., Punjab Police.
3) 2013. The Petitioner was promoted as Inspector, Punjab Police.
4) 31.07.2019. An F.I.R. was registered against SI Sukhmander Singh under Section
384. 452, 380, 342, 120-B, 201 I.P.C. and Section 7, 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act and Section 21, 29, 59, 6, 85 of N.D.P.S. Act.
5) 13.09.2019. The Petitioner was shocked that he had been arrayed as accused in the
above-mentioned FIR without having any link whatsoever with the offenses alleged to
have been committed in the said F.I.R.
6) Till date no challan has been presented against the petitioner and the investigation is
going on.
7) 4.11.2019. An order was passed initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioner
on the ground that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused in the abovementioned
F.I.R.
8) 5.02.2020. The petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court.
9) The petitioner has requested the respondents numerous times that the enquiry should
be adjourned sine die till the prosecution evidence if any is concluded as the
Departmental Enquiry has been initiated on the same set of facts and on the basis of
the abovementioned FIR alone.
10) 8.09.2021. The petitioner has been telephonically conveyed that the departmental
enquiry has to be concluded within 15 days and as such petitioner should submit his
defence before that otherwise he shall be proceeded against without considering his
defence.
11) The action of the Respondents is gravely prejudicial as the grievance of the petitioner
is that the petitioner is being forced to disclose his evidence in the departmental
enquiry which is initiated on the same set of facts and allegations qua which criminal
proceedings are pending.

ISSUES INVOLVED:

14 | Page
 1) Whether the undue pressure being imposed by the Respondents on the petitioner to
disclose his defence on the allegations levelled against him in the criminal
proceedings before the completion of investigation is violative of principles of natural
justice and hence illegal?
2) Whether the petitioner has the right not to disclose his defence in the departmental
proceedings or otherwise till the time prosecution evidence is concluded in the
criminal proceedings continuing the same set of facts?

COURT’S ORDER:

Notice of Motion for 1.10.2021.

The Hon’ble Court directed that till the next date of hearing; examining of common witnesses
(who are common in the Trial Court and the departmental enquiry) shall remain stayed.

CASES RESEARCHED:

1) The law laid down by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Capt. M Paul Anthony (30
March, 1999) provides us with the guiding principle in the present circumstances.

⮚ “The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court

referred to above are:-

❖ Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can

proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in them being conducted

simultaneously though separately.

❖ If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on

identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case
against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves
complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay
the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal
case.
2) The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Veeraswamy v. Union of India and
others [(1991)3 SCC 655] is also of much value in the present case where the court
held “No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution

15 | Page
 must prove the guilt of the prisoner is a part of the common law of England and no
attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.”
3) In V.D. Jhingam v. State of Utter Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 1762 the Court held that
“The cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the burden to prove the guilt of
the accused would always lie upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting
the offence beyond reasonable doubt. If there is a reasonable doubt, the accused is
entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.” As in the present case, the burden of proof
is still on the Respondents, the petitioners should not be forced to give their defence.

16. CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

The disciplinary inquiry should be stayed in the present case for the following reasons:-

⮚ The facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental

proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of
difference.

⮚ A person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty but in the present case if the

disciplinary inquiry is imposed in such a manner as to punish the petitioner even

before the investigation is concluded.

⮚ Departmental inquiry shall begin after the prosecution evidence is complete in the

F.I.R. and the petitioner should not be forced to lay his defence beforehand. If the
disclosure of defence is done before the completion of prosecution evidence, the
departmental proceedings would gravely prejudice the petitioner in the criminal trial
as the prosecution instead of standing on its own legs would only focus upon
improving their version to disprove the defence of the petitioner. This would be not
only against the settled principles of law but also violative of the principles of natural
justice. The settled legal principles as laid in Capt. M. Paul Anthony also assert this.

⮚ As, continuance of disciplinary action in the present case simultaneous to the

investigation would do more unjust than just. The disciplinary proceedings against
the petitioner must be adjourned sine die till the conclusion of prosecution evidence.

16 | Page
17 | Page