Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Trial Court Order to File Challan Against DSP for Bypassing Mandatory HC Rules
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi quashed a trial court’s directive that had ordered the Home Secretary, Haryana and the D.G., CID Vigilance to file a challan against DSP Veer Singh and three other police officials in a case of alleged custodial assault and extortion. The Court observed that the directive had been issued without adhering to the procedure laid down under Chapter 1, Part H, Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, which requires that any action or criticism against police officers be routed through the District Magistrate to the Registrar of the High Court, with reference to the Home Secretary’s Circular dated 15 April 1936. The Bench held that the omission to follow this mandatory process rendered the trial court’s order legally unsustainable.
The dispute originated with the registration of an FIR in September 2009 at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram, on the complaint of a police officer against Hans Raj Rathi and others for alleged offences of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy. After the filing of the challan, Hans Raj Rathi lodged a complaint against certain police personnel, including the complainant officer, other constables, and DSP Veer Singh, alleging custodial assault and demand for money. This complaint was investigated by the CID Crime Branch, which led to the suspension of several police personnel and the registration of a second FIR in July 2010 against the involved officers under provisions including Sections 166, 347, 384, 120-B of the IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
During investigation of the second FIR, reports submitted by senior officers in 2011 concluded that DSP Veer Singh and certain others were not involved. The trial proceeded only against four police personnel, who were later convicted by the trial court in February 2022. While delivering the judgment of conviction, the trial court directed the Home Secretary, Haryana and the D.G., CID Vigilance to submit a challan against DSP Veer Singh and three other police officials, observing that evidence existed against them.
DSP Veer Singh and the State challenged this directive before the High Court, contending that the trial court had acted beyond its jurisdiction by issuing the order at the conclusion of the trial without invoking the provisions of Sections 193 or 319 of the Cr.P.C., which allow summoning of additional accused during cognizance or evidence stages. They also argued that the order contravened Chapter 1, Part H, Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, which prescribes the procedure for taking action or making adverse remarks against police officers. The legal aid counsel for the complainant did not oppose these contentions, acknowledging that the prescribed procedure had not been followed.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi noted that the case required examining Chapter 1 Part H Rule 6 of the High Court Rules, which provides that “It is undesirable for Courts to make remarks censuring the action of police officers unless such remarks are strictly relevant to the case.”
The Court observed that the Trial Court had not followed this mandatory procedure. “No such procedure had been followed in the instant case and the Trial Court while convicting the accused directed the submission of a challan against the petitioner and other officials and for completion of the proceedings within two months. This procedure followed by the Trial Court is unknown to law.” The Court stated that the remarks and directions were issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, violating the principle of audi alteram partem.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Shikha Trading Co. (2023), the Court stated that remarks against public officers must satisfy the test laid down in State of UP v. Mohammad Naim (AIR 1964 SC 703), requiring that the person be before the Court or given an opportunity to defend, that evidence supports the remarks, and that the remarks are necessary for deciding the case. The High Court quoted: “Adverse remarks of serious nature upon the character or professional competence of a person should not be passed lightly.” The Court also cited State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary (2019), where it was held that a High Court cannot direct initiation of proceedings against officers without giving them a hearing.
The Bench further relied on its earlier judgements in Astha Modi v. State of Haryana and Dr. Mrs. Naresh Saini v. State of Haryana, both holding that courts must not make adverse remarks or direct action against officers without hearing them. It was recorded: “Prior to the taking of any action against any official, he must be given an opportunity of hearing to explain his position. The same having not been done in the instant case would render the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and others nugatory.”
The Court also held that if the Trial Court had deemed other persons culpable, it could have invoked Section 193 Cr.P.C. at the cognizance stage or Section 319 Cr.P.C. during trial. “None of these procedures were adopted by the Trial Court,” the judgment recorded.
The judgment stated: “In view of the aforementioned discussion, the directions issued in Para 28 of the judgment dated 23.02.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram (Annexure P-9) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed qua the petitioner.”
The petitions—CRM-M-15604-2022 filed by Veer Singh, DSP, and CRM-M-53510-2023 filed by the State of Haryana—were disposed of accordingly. The Bench also directed that all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of in similar terms.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate; Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vipul Sherwal, AAG, Haryana, for Respondent No.1; Ms. Sehaj Sandhawalia, Legal Aid Counsel, for Respondent No.2.
Case Title: Veer Singh DSP v. State of Haryana and another; State of Haryana v. Hans Raj Rathi
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:137624
Case Number: CRM-M-15604-2022 and CRM-M-53510-2023
Bench: Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
