2 years on, FIR against Khaira quashed by High Court

Advertisement

Chandigarh, August 27

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered against MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira more than two years back under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, Epidemic Diseases Act and the IPC.

The FIR was registered at Jalandhar on May 25, 2020, on the allegations that the accused by “making a gathering of people” interfered with the orders issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Allowing Khaira’s plea, Justice Sureshwar Thakur also quashed all consequential proceedings, but only with regard to the petitioner.

His counsel told the court that the institution of a police report by the investigating officer concerned before the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not empower him to either assume jurisdiction or take cognisance of the matter.

Elaborating, the counsel argued that the Chief Judicial Magistrate became empowered to take cognisance only when the Jalandhar District Magistrate either personally instituted a complaint before him or authorised an officer subordinate to him to institute it before the “jurisdictionally empowered magistrate”.

The District Magistrate did not personally present the challan, but authorised the public prosecutor concerned to make an appearance on his behalf before the court.

Justice Thakur asserted the District Magistrate did authorise an assistant public prosecutor and the assumption of cognisance was valid. But the provisions of the CrPC barred the assumption of cognisance or jurisdiction upon police challan/complaint, if it was filed after more than a year since the commission of the offences, especially when the maximum sentence of punishment imposable upon the petitioner did not exceed one year.

Justice Thakur added the jurisdictionally empowered magistrate’s assumption of cognisance and also jurisdiction became well authorised. Yet, it was not well founded and was completely vitiated. The period of limitation was condonable through an application for condonation of delay. But the reading of the impugned summoning order did not reveal that the prosecution adopted the provision of CrPC for seeking condonation of the apposite delay.