Multiple FIRs at different places is punishment by process of law: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, January 6

In a significant judgment on registration of multiple FIRs at various places by different people on similar allegations, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the same “may by itself be a punishment by the process of law”.

Conflicting views create confusion

Advertisement

Divergent opinions and interpretations (due to multiple trials) give rise to confusion not only in the minds of the people involved in the trial, but also the accused and witnesses and in the mind of the general public. Syed Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj, Punjab & Haryana HC

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj also ruled the administration of criminal justice system, applicable in the country, raised a presumption of innocence for an accused unless proven guilty. The process could not be deployed as means of inflicting sentence on a person even before the offence was established by subjecting him to an arduous procedural requirement.

The ruling by Justice Bhardwaj came on a bunch of petitions against the States of Punjab and Haryana by Pawan Kumar Verma and another petitioner through senior advocate Chetan Mittal with Varun Issar, Mayank Aggarwal and Ankit Sharma. The petitioners were seeking the clubbing together of trials before the courts in two states before placing them before a court.

Mittal contended the petitioners’ right to life and personal liberty was being violated due to multitude of trials, forcing them to appear before one court or the other for more than 25 days a month. Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench was also told that around 50 FIRs were pending in the two states.

The Bench was further told that the petitioners were the directors of companies that issued gas dealership certificates. The companies could not provide gas cylinders at subsidised rates following a change in the government policy, giving rise to disputes between them and the distributors “against price increase in the LPG gas/re-filling charges etc”. Justice Bhardwaj said the registration of multiple FIRs had all the callings of draining an accused of his resources and health. It compelled him to engage lawyers, face difficulties in arranging sureties, make adequate travel arrangements for different dates and also abandon actual trade/occupation only to remain present to pursue the tirade of litigation launched against him. “Such drain was itself a deprivation and denial of pursuit of a fair trial, apart from encroaching on rights protected under Article 21 of the Constitution”, Justice Bhardwaj observed, adding problems also arose following discrepancies in judgments by various courts on same set of allegations and similar evidence, resulting in conflicting judgments, diverse opinions and discrepant interpretations.

Justice Bhardwaj asserted: “Divergent opinions and interpretations give rise to confusion not only in the minds of the people involved in the trial, but also to the accused and witnesses and in the mind of the general public. The same, thus, erodes the supremacy of law and leads to inferences that question the administration of criminal justice.”

Justice Bhardwaj also directed the transfer of criminal cases pending in Haryana to the Court of Panchkula Chief Judicial Magistrate and cases pending in Punjab to the Court of Mohali Chief Judicial Magistrate.