LAWS(P&H)-2000-11-53

SHEODAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On November 30, 2000
SHEODAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of FIR No. 395 dated 6.4.1998 under Sections 448/342/325/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon and the consequential proceedings thereto.

(2.) ON 8.3.1995, petitioner was a serving police official. A complaint was made against the petitioner and others before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. After hearing the preliminary evidence, the petitioner along with some others have been ordered to be summoned by order dated 21.4.1995. The allegations in the complaint are the workers of Maruti Udyog had formed a cooperative housing building society namely Chanderlok Maruti Cooperative House Building Society, Chakerpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society').

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties at length. Mr. Wadhwa has submitted that in view of the specific bar contained in Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights, Act, 1993, the Commission had no jurisdiction to issue any notice to the Director General of Police or to investigate violation of any human rights, the same having been committed more than one year prior to the filing of the complaint. Initially Mr. Wadhwa had also laid considerable stress on the point that the date of the incident had been deliberately changed from 8.3.1995 to 8.3.1996 in order to give jurisdiction to the Commission. At this stage, when the matter was being argued he has, however, stated that this statement was made purely on the basis of the allegations contained in the FIR where the date is said to be 8.3.1996. After perusing the complaint it becomes apparent that the date mentioned is 8.3.1995. He, therefore, now wishes not to stress the allegations of fraud. He relies on the bar under Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act to submit that the investigation and the registration of the FIR are without jurisdiction. Since the incident took place on 8.3.1995, the Commission could not have entertained the complaint dated 16.4.1996.