ARVINDER VIR SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR

A                            ARVINDERVIR SINGH
                                        v.
                        STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR

                                AUGUST 5, 1998

B                  [G.T. NANA VAT!, S.P. KURDUKAR AND
                   SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.]


         Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 195(J)(b)(i) and 340-
  0ffences against public justice as contemplated under Sections 193, 194, 211
C and 218 !PC committed in, or in relation to, any proceedings in a court-
  Abduction and murder of an Advocate and his family members-On an
  inquiry conducted by Supreme Court, CBI directed to conduct an inquiry
  and file a final report-Report suggesting that appellant and 3 other police
  officers falsely implicated a person in this case-Supreme Court directing
D acquittal of that person falsely implicated and directing CBI to file cha/Ian
  in the Designated Court and transferring the trial from one court to another--
  CBI filed a cha/Ian pursuant to which a non-bailable warrant was issued
  against the erring police officers for offences punishable under Sections 193,
  194, 211 and 218 IPC-Held, for offences punishable under Sections 193,
  194, 211 and 218, complaint by court concerned after holding a preliminary
E inquiry necessary-Supreme Court cannot direct the trial Court to try those
  offences-Direction given by Supreme Court in Punjab and Haryana High
  Court Bar Association's case does not run counter to the interpretation given
  to Sections 195 and 340 Cr. PC in Raj Singh's case-CBI misunderstood the
  direction given in Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association's case
  and instead offl/ ing a cha/Ian for an offence of abduction and murder, filed
F it for offences punishable under Sections 193, 194, 211, and 218 IPC-Order
   taking cognizance under Sections 193, 194, 2JJ, and 218 quashed and the
  Designated Court directed to make a complaint to a Magistrate having
  jurisdiction to try those offences-However, inquiry under Section 340 having
  already been held as per the direction of Supreme Court, process issued by
G the Designated Court against the accused persons need not be set aside--
   CBI directed to file cha/Ian in the Designated Court for the offence of
   abduction and murder as directed in Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar
   Association's case-Penal Code, 1860, Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218.

           On 8.2.1993 a criminal offence was registered at Police Station 'R'
i H against one HS, on the basis of 'Ruqua' sent by the appellant who was SHO.
                                        1004
                      ARVINDERVIR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                        1005
       It was alleged that HS and one SS had abducted an Advocates his wife and his       A
       child with an intention to murder them. During interrogation, HS was stated
       to have disclosed that he and SS had already committed murder of those three
       persons. On that information, police raided one shop wherein SS and one RS
       were present but they consumed cyanide before they could be apprehended.
       On 12.2.1993, HS was stated to have made an extra judicial confession before       B
       one AS that he and co-accused SS had abducted those three persons, committed
       their murder and the dead bodies were thrown in a Canal along with their car.
       Pursuant thereto, police recovered the car from the canal on 12.2.1993. On
       11.3.1993 an application was given by HS to the Sessions Judge, for making
       a confession. At this Stage, the State Bar Association filed a writ petition in
       the High Court that the investigation made by the police in this case was not      c
       fair and that an inquiry be ordered by CBI. High dismissed the writ petition.
       On appeal filed by the Bar Association before the Supreme Court, CBI was
       directed to conduct an inquiry and file a report. CBI after registering the case
       made investigation and filed a final report before Supreme Court, wherein it
       was stated that HS had been falsely implicated in the case; that appellant,        D
       another ASI, one Inspector and DSP were prima facie responsible for false
       implication of HS and were liable for prosecution for offences under Section
 )     193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC; and that State Government may be requested for
       taking suitable action against the DIG for his lack of supervision.

             Supreme Court directed the registration of c'lSe against the said erring     E
       officials including the appellant while directing the release of HS and
       transferred the case from District Court, Nabha to District Court, Chandigarh.
       CBI filed charge-sheet in the Designated Court On 2.9.1996 appellant moved
       an application for cancellation of non-bailable warrant against him and that
       all proceedings initiated and process issued pursuant to the charge sheet be       F
       rescinded in view of the bar of Section 195(l)(b)(i) read with Section 340 Cr.
       PC. Designated Court dismissed the application saying that in view of the
       direction of Supreme Court filing of a complaint by concerned Designated
       Court was not necessary. Appeal filed before the High Court was also dismissed.
       Hence this appeal.                                                                 G
             It was contended by appellant that in view of the bar contained in Section
       195(l)(b)(i) Cr. PC no court could take cognizance of any offence punishable
-->.   under Sections, 193, 196, 199-200, 205-211 and 228; that no complaint as
       per Section 340 Cr. PC filed or inquiry held, no cognizance could have been
       taken by the designated Court.                                                     H
    1006                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A          This Appeal was listed before a Division Bench of two Hon'ble Judges
    who thought that the view expressed by this Court in Raj Singh 's (*) case ran
    to some extent counter to the view expressed by two Hon 'ble Judges in Purifab
    and Haryana High Court Bar Association's (**) case and hence referred to
    larger Bench.

B          Partly allowing the appeal, this Court

           HELD: I. I. The answer to the question whether the direction given by
    this Court in the case of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association
    runs counter to the provisions contained in Section 195 and 340 Cr. PC, as
C   interpreted by this Court in Raj Singh 's case, depends upon how the said
    direction is read and construed. If the said direction is read as a direction
    to the CBI to file a chargesheet against the appellant and the other three
    police officers for the offences under Section 193, 194, 2ll and 218 IPC in
    the Designated Court at Chandigarh and a further direction to the Designated
    Court to dispose of the trial in respect of those offences then it will have to
D   be held that they are not consistent with the provisions of Sections 195 and
    340 of the Code and run counter to the view expressed by this Court in Raj
    Singh 's case. It appears that the direction given by this Court was so understood
    by the CBI and therefore, it filed an additional chargesheet in the Designated
    Court against the appellant and three other police officers for the said
E   offences. The Designated Court also proceeded on the basis that the direction
    was to try those accused for those offences and as the direction was given by
    this Court it was not necessary for it to follow the procedure contained in
    Section 340 of the Code. As the matter had proceeded like that before the
    Designated Court, and the contentions were raised regarding legality of
    taking cognizance and issuing of process for the offences under Section 193,
F   194, 2ll and 218 IPC the Bench before which the SLP was earlier listed for
    hearing did not examine what really was the direction given by this Court and
    rightly felt that the direction was not consistent with the provisions of Sections
    194 and 340 as interpreted by the Bench in Raj Singh 's case.
                                                                [1012-G-H; 1013-A-C]
G         1.2. Tliis Court had not directed the CBI to file a challan against the
    appellant and other three police officers for the offences under Sections 193,
    194, 2ll and 218 IPC in the Designated Court, Chandigarh, in Punjab and
    Haryana High Court Bar Association's case. This Court had also not directed
    that Designated Court to proceed with the trial against those police officers
H   for the said offences. The direction given by this Court should have been read
                     ARVINDERVIR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                       1007
      and understood in the context of the facts of that case. And considering the      A
-{.
      facts it may be recalled that the trial which was pending in the Designated
      Court at Nabha was in respect of murder -Of an Advocate and his family
      members. Even though HS was acquitted this Court did not want that trial to
      be treated as concluded and, therefore, it was transferred form Designated
      Court at Nabha to Designated Court at Chandigarh. The reason why this             B
      Court did not want the said trial to be treated as over and transferred it from
      Designated Court at Nabha to Designated Court at Chandigarh is to be found
      in the last part of paragraph 1 of the judgement. Even though the CBI had
      reported that the investigation made by it did not reveal any evidence to show
      who had caused the murder of the said Advocate and his family members and
      that there was no evidence against the suspected police officers to connect       C
      them with kidnapping and killing ofsaid Advocate and his family members,
      this Court took the view that whether the circumstances were sufficient to
      prosecute them or not is a matter for the court to consider. This Court then
      observed that it would be open to the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar
      Association and the Prosecutor to argue before the trial court that the           D
      material collected by the CBI shows that the police officers and primafacie
      responsible for the abduction and murder of the said Advocate and his family
      members and are liable for prosecution offences under the relevant provisions
      of IPC. [1013-H; 1014-A-DJ

            (*) State of Punjab v. Raj Singh, (1998) 1 Scale 130 and                    E
            (**) Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association v. State of
      Punjab, [1996) 4 SCC 742, referred to.

             1.3. Since this Court did not accept the suggestion of the CBI not to
      proceed against the police officers for the abduction and murder of the said      F
      Advocate and his family it ordered transfer of the trial form the Designated
1
      Court at Nabha to the Designated Court at Chandigarh and directed the CBI
      to file the necessary challan before that Court Obviously, the challan which
      was directed to be filed against the police officers was in the trial which was
      transferred to Designated Court at Chandigarh and that trial was for the
      offence of abduction and murder of the said Advocate and his family members.      G
      The direction was not to file a challan against those police officers for the
      offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC. It was in
      respect for the trial of abduction and murder that the State Government was
      directed to grant sanction under Section 197 Cr. PC. The trial court was
      directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. Paragraph I read with paragraph     H
    · 1008                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (1998] 3 S.C.R.

A    4 of the Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association's case
     makes the above observations clear. (1014-E-G)                                      1-

            1.4. It was the CBI which misunderstood the direction and instead of
     filing a chargesheet against the police officers for the offence of abduction
     and murder of said Advocate and his family members, filed it for the offences
B    punishable under Section 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC. Obviously, this Court
     was not unaware about the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr. PC and,
     therefore, could not have directed the CBI to file a challan for the offences
     under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 in the Designated Court at Chandigarh
     and directed the Court to try those offences. (1014-H; 1015-A)
c          1.5. It was therefore, not proper and legal for the Designated Court at
     Chandigarh to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 193, 194, 211
     and 218 IPC and to proceed with the trial of those offences against the
     appellant and the other three police officers. However, the process issued by
     the Designated Court against them need not be set aside as inquiry
D    contemplated under by Section 340(1) of the Code has already been held by
     this Court and finding has been recorded that they appear to have committed
     these offences in relation to the proceedings which was pending in the
     Designated Court at Nabha. In view of sub-section (2) of Section 340 it was         (
     competent for this Court to exercise the power of the trial court under
     section 340(1) and hold an inquiry. As the appellant and the three police
E    officers prima facie appear to have committed the said offences is open to the
     Designated Court at Chandigarh, now that the case has been transferred to
     that court, to issue process under clause(d) to take security for their
     appearance before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try those offences.
                                                                        (1015-B-C)
F          2. The taking of cognizance by the Designated Court of the offences
     under Sections 193, 194, 211and218 IPC is quashed and direct the Designated
     Court to make a complaint in writing to a Magistrate having jurisdiction in
     respect of those offences. CBI is directed to file an additional challan against
     the appellant and the other the other three police officers as directed by this
G    Court in Purjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association's case. The State
     Government is also directed to comply with the direction given in that case
     as clarified by this judgement. (1015-C)

             (*) State of Punjab v. Raj Singh, [1998) I Scale 130; and

H            (**) Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association v. State of
          ARVINDERVIRSINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (NANAVATI, J.] 1009

    Pwy'ab, I 1996) 4 sec 742, referred to.                                           A
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
    777 of 1998.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.97 of the Punjab and Haryana
    High Court in Cr!. M. No. 21068-M of 1997.)                                       B
         Sushi! Kumar, Sudhir Walia, and M.S. Dahiya for the appellant R.S.
    Sodhi, for the Respondent.

          Rajeev Sharma and P. Prameswaran, for C.8.1.
                                                                                      c
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          NANAVA Tl, J. Leave granted.

          Heard learned counsel for the parties.
.          This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the
                                                                                      D
    High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Misc. No. 21068 of 1997. The
    appellant had filed that application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
    Procedure, for getting quashed the criminal proceeqings initiated pursuant to
    R.C. No. 33 of 1993 dated 8.10.93 filed by the C.B.I. and the report made under
     Section 173 Cr. P.C. to the Designated Court, on the ground that the said        E
    complaint and the report do not disclose commission of any offence and that
    initiation of the said proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the
    Court. The High Court by its Order dated 24.9.97 dismissed that application
    on the ground that th~ intention of the appellant was to delay the proceedings
    and that no formal complaint under Section 195(l)(b) was required for issuing     F
    the process and that it will be open to the appellant to take all the pleas
    including the plea that the complaint does not disclose any offence, at the
    time of framing of the charge.

          The proceedings against the appellant have come to be initiated under
    the following circumstances. On 8.2.93 a criminal offence was registered at G
    Ropar Police Station against one Harpreet Singh alias Lucky, on the basis of
    a 'Ruqua' sent by the appellant who was S.H.O. of Ropar Police Station. it
    was alleged that Harpreet Singh alias Lucky and one Surjeet Singh had
    abducted advocate Kulwant Singh, his wife and his child with an intention
    to murder them. During interrogation Harpreet Singh was stated to have
    disclosed that he and Surjeet singh had already committed murders of those H
    1010                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A   three persons. On the basis of that infonnatioa the police had raided a shop
    wherein Surjeet Singh and Rulda Singh were present. Both of them consumed
    cynadine before they could be apprehended by the police. During investigation
    of that offence, on 12.2.93, Harpreet Singh was stated to have made an extra
    judicial confession before Avatar Singh, who was a Lambardar, that he and
B   co-accused Surjeet Singh had abducted those three persons, committed their
    murder and the dead bodies were thrown in Bhakara Canal near Sirhind
    Floating Restaurant and that their car was also thrown in that canal. Pursuant
    to that infonnation the police had recovered the car from the canal on 12.2.93.
    On 11.3.93 an application was given by Harpreet Singh to the lean1ed Sessions
     Judge, stating therein that he wanted to make a confession and along with
C   that application he had also submitted a confessional statement which he
     wanted to make. At this stage of the investigation, the Punjab and Haryana
     Bar Association filed a writ petition in the High Court praying that the
     investigation which was made by the police in the said case registered against
     Harpreet Singh was not fair and that an inquiry by C.B.I. may be ordered. That
D    writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. The Bar Association had
     thereafter filed an appeal before this Court. Allowing that appeal this Court
     directed the C.B.I. to investigate the said case and also to submit a report to
     this Court. The C.B.I. registered the case as R.C. No. 33 of 1993 and after
     investigation submitted the final report to this Court on 7.3.1996 wherein
     following actions were recommended:-
E
            "(i) Harpreet Singh @ Lucky s/o Gurmit Singh Saini, r/o Village
            Bahadurpur, who is presently facing trial in case FIR No. I 0/93 of
            PS Sadar, Ropar in the Designated Court, Nabha has been falsely
            implicated in the case.

p            (ii) SI Avindervir Singh, AS! Darsahan Singh, Inspector Balwant Singh
             and DSP Jaspal Singh are prima facie responsible for the false
             implication of Harpreet Singh @ Lucky in the aforesaid case an are
             liable for prosecution for offences under Sections 193, 194, 211
             and 218 IPC.

G            (iii) The State Government of Punjab is to be requested for taking
             suitable action against Shri Sanjiv Gupta, DIG, Punjab Police for his
             lack of supervision."

           In the final report the CBI had also suggested that the !:oncemed
     Designated Court be directed to file a complaint as required by Section 195
H    Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the appellant and A.S.I. Darshan Singh, Inspector
      ARVINDERVIR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [NANA VAT!, J.] 1011

Balwant Singh and D.S.P. Jaspal Singh under Sections 193, 194, 211and218            A
IPC. Allowing the appeal on 10.5.96, this Court directed that Harpreet Singh
@Lucky be released from jail forthwith, transferred the trial from the Designated
Court at Nabha to the Designated Court at Chandigarh and directed the C.B.I.
to file necessary challan in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure,
before trial court at Chandigarh. A consequential order was also passed by          B
the Designated Court for the release of Harpreet Singh on 16.5.96.

     In view of the said directions a chargesheet was filed by the C.B.I. in
the Designated Court, Chandigarh, which after receiving papers from the
Designated Court at Nabha issued process pursuance to which the accused
came to be arrested and confined in custody.                                        C
       On 2.9.96 the appellant moved and application to the Court at Chandigarh
in R.C. No. 33 of 1993 praying that non-bailable warrant issued against him
be recalled and all subsequent proceedings initiated and process issued
pursuant to the chargesheet filed by the C.B.I. be rescinded in view of the
bar contained in Section I 95(1(b)(i) read with Section 340 Cr. P.C. The D
contention of the appellant before the Court was that until a complaint is filed
by the concerned Designated Court, after holding a preliminary inquiry and
after recording a finding to the effect that an offence appears to have been
committed in or in relation to a proceedings in that court or, as the case may
be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding
in that court, the Designated Court at Chandigarh cannot take cognizance of E
the challan filed by the C.B.I. The Designated Court held that in view of the
directions given by this Court filing of a complaint by the concerned Designated
Court was not necessary; and therefore, it dismissed the said application by
an Order dated 11.9.97. The appellant thereafter moved Cr!. Misc No. 21069
of 1997 to the High Court but it was dismissed as stated above.
                                                                                    F
      Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Designated Court and the
High Court the appellant filed special leave petition in this Court to grant
leave to him to file an appeal against those order. That S.L.P. came up for
hearing before a Bench consisting of our learned Brothers Mukherjee and
Thomas, JJ. It was felt by that Bench that the view expressed by it in the State G
of Punjab v. Raj Singh and another, (1998) 1 SCALE 130) runs, to some
extent, counter to the direction given by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in
Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association v. State of Punjab and
others, [1996] 4 sec 742 and, therefore, it passed the following order:-

       "As the views expressed by us in State of Punjab v. Raj Singh and H
    1012                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A           another, ( 1998) 1 SCALE 130 run;, to some extent, counter to the
            direction given by a two Judge Bench in Punjab and Haryana High
            Court Bar Association v. State of Punjab and other, (1996] 4 SCC
            742), pursuant to which the impugned order has been made we deem
            it fit to refer this petition to a larger Bench. Let this petition be,
            therefore, placed before Hon. the Chief Justice of India for necessary
B           orders."

         Consequently, the S.L.P. was placed before us and after hearing learned
    counsel for the petitioner we granted leave as stated above.

        The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the bar
c contained in Section l 95(l)(b)(i) no court can take cognizance of any offence
    punishable under Sections 193-196, 199-200, 205-211 and 228 when such
    offence is alleged to have been committed in, and in relation to, any proceeding
    in any court except on the complaint in writing of the Court or of some Court
    to which that court is subordinate. He also drew our attention to Section 340
D   of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides the procedure required to be
    followed in cases mentioned in Section 195. He submitted that what the law
    requires is that the court has to first hold a preliminary inquiry, then record
    a finding that an offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (I) of Section
    195 appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that
    court; make a complaint thereof in writing and then sent it to a Magistrate
E
    having jurisdiction to try it. He submitted that in this case the Designated
    Court, Nabha or its successor court has not held any inquiry or recorded a
    finding or filed a complaint as contemplated by Section 340 and, therefore, the
    Designated Court at Chandigarh could not have taken cognizance of those
    offences and issued process and issued non-bailable warrant against the
F   appellant.

           The answer to the question whether the direction given by this Court
    in the case of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association (supra) runs
    counter to the provisions contained in Section 195 and 340 of the Code of
G   Criminal Procedure, as interpreted by this Court in Raj Singh's case (supra),
    depends upon how the said direction is read and construed. If the said
    direction is read as a direction to the CBI to file a chargesheet against the
    appellant and the other three police officers for the offences under Sections
     193, 194, 211ad218 !PC in the Designated Court at Chandigarh and a further
    direction to the Designated Court to dispose of the trial in respect of those
H   offences then it will have to be held that they are not consistent with the
      ARVINDERVIR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (NANA VAT!, J.] 1013

provisions of Sections 195 and 340 of the Code and run counter to the view         A
expressed by this Court in Raj Singh 's case (supra). It appears that the
direction given by this Court was so understood by the CBI and therefore,
it filed an additional chargesheet in the Designated Court against the appellant
and other three police officers for the said offences. The Designated Court
also proceeded on the basis that the direction was to try those accused for        B
those offences and as the direction was given by this Court it was not
necessary for it to follow the procedure contained in Section 340 of the Code.
As the matter had proceeded like that before the Designated Court, and the
contentions were raised regarding legality of taking cognizance and issuing
of process for the offences under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 !PC the
Bench before which the SLP was earlier listed for hearing did not examine          C
what really was the direction given by this Court and rightly felt that the
direction was not consistent with the provisions of Sections 194 and 340 as
interpreted by that Bench in Raj Singh 's case, (supra).

       On going through the decision of this Court in the case of Punjab and
 Haryana High Court Bar Association (supra) we find that this Court had not D
directed the CBI to file a challan against the appellant and other three police
officers for the offences under Sections I 93, 194, 211 and 218 !PC in the
Designated Court, Chandigarh. This Court had also not directed that Designated
Court to proceed with the trial against those police officers for the said
offences. The direction given by this Court should have been read and E
understood in the context of the facts of that case. An offence was registered
as FIR No. 10/93 in respect of murder of Kulwant Singh and his wife and their
two year old child. After investigation the police had filed a chargesheet
against Harpreet Singh @ Lucky in the Designated Court, Nabha. After the
trial had commenced in that Court the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar
Association had moved the High Court with a petition to direct CBI to F
conduct further investigation as it felt that the police had filed a false case
against Harpreet Singh. The High Court having dismissed that writ petition
an appeal was filed in this Court. Feeling the necessity of further investigation
by the CBI this Court passed an order to that effect and after submission of
final report by the CBI and consideration thereof this Court disposed of the G
appeal by giving certain directions. As Harpreet Singh was found to have
been involved in the offence of murder falsely he was directed to be acquitted
and the Government was directed to pay compensation to him. The Government
was also directed to pay compensation to the parents of Kulwant Singh. This
Court then ordered transfer of the trial from Designated Court at Nabha to the
Designated Court at Chandigarh. It may be recalled that the trial which was H
    1014                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1998) 3 S.C.R.

A pending in the Designated Court at Nabha was in respect of murder of
  Kulwant singh and his family members. Even though Harpreet Singh was
  ordered to be acquitted this Court did not want that trial to be treated as
  concluded and, therefore, it was transferred from the Designated Court at
  Nabha to the Designated Court at Chandigarh. The reason why this Court did
  not want the said trial to be treated as over and transferred it from the
B Designated Court at Nabha to the Designated Court at _Chandigarh is to be
  found in the last part of Paragraph 1 of the judgment. Even though the CBI
  had reported that the investigation made by it did not reveal any evidence
  to show who had caused the murder of Kulwant singh and his family members
  and that there was no evidence against the suspected police officers to
c connect them with kidnapping and killing of Kulwant Singh and his family
  members, this Court took the view that whether the circumstances were
  sufficient to prosecute them or not is a matter for the court to consider. This
  Court then observed that it would be open to the Punjab and Haryana High
  Court Bar Association and the Prosecutor to argue before the trial court that
  the material collected by the CBI shows that the police officers are prima facie
D responsible for the abduction and murder of Kulwant Singh and his family
  and are liable for prosecution for offences under the relevant provisions of
  the Indian Penal Code. Since this Court did not accept the suggestion of the
  CBI not to proceed against the police officers for the abduction and murder
   ofKulwant Singh and his family members it ordered transfer of the trial from
E the Designated Court at nabha to the Designated Court at Chandigarh and
   directed the CBI to file the necessary challan before that Court. Obviously,
  the challan which was directed to be filed against the police officers was in
   the trial which was transferred from the Designated Court at Nabha to the
   Designated Court at Chandigarh and that trial was for the offence of abduction
   and murder of Kulwant Singh and his family members. The direction was not
F to file a challan against those police officers for the offences punishable
   under Sections 193, 194, 211and218 IPC. It was in respect of trial for the
   offence of abduction and murder that the State Government was directed to
   grant sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial
   court was directed to conclude that trial expeditiously. What we have stated
G above becomes clear if the observations made in the last part of Paragraph
    1 of the judgment are read with the directions given in Paragraph 4 of that
   judgment.

          It was the CBI which misunderstood the direction and instead of filing
     a chargesheet against the police officers for the offence of abduction and
H    murder of Kulwant Singh and his family members filed it for the offences
            ARVINDERVIR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [NANA VAT!, J.] 1015

     punishable under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC. Obviously, this court        A
     was not unaware of the provisions contained in Sections 195 and 340 Cr. PC
     and, therefore, could not have directed the CBI to file a challan for the
     offences under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC in the Designated Court
     at Chandigarh and directed that court to try those offences.

           It was, therefore, not proper and_ legal for the Designated Court at        B
      Chandigarh to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 193, 194, 211
      and 218 IPC and to proceed with the trial of those offences against the
     appellant and the other three police officers. However, the process issued by
     the Designated Court against them need not be set aside as inquiry
     contemplated by Section 340(1) of the Code has already been held by this          C
     Court and a finding has been recorded that they appear to have committed
     these offences in relations to the proceeding which was pending in the
     Designated Court at Nabha. In view of sub-section (2) of Section 340 it was
     competent for this Court to exercise the power of the trial court under Section
     340(1) and hold an inquiry. As the appellant and the three police officers
     prima facie appear to have committed the said offences it was open to the
     Designated Court at Chandigarh, now that the case has been transferred to
     that court, to have issued process under clause (d) to take security for their
     appearance before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try those offences.

            We, therefore, partly allow this appeal, quash the taking of cognizance
     by the Designated Court of the offences under Sections 193, 194, 211and218
     IPC and direct that court to make a complaint in writing to a magistrate having
     jurisdiction in respect of those offences. The CBI is also directed to file an
     additional challan against the appellant and the other three police officers as
     directed by this Court by its judgment in the case of Punjab and Haryana

-,   High Court Bar Association (supra). The State Government is also directed
     to comply with the direction given in that case and as clarified by us. The
     Designated Court at Chandigarh will then complete the trial as expeditiously
     as possible.

     RKS.                                                   Appeal partly allowed.