Amar Dutt, J.:— This judgment will dispose of Criminal Misc. Nos. 28044-M, 28047-M, 31788-M and 35849-M of 1999, which have been filed to quash F.I.R/Crime No. R.C 4(S)/97.SIU-V/SIC-II/CBI dated 5.2.1997 under Sections 364/342/302/201 read with Section 120 IPC.

2. The F.I.R in this case was registered by the C.B.I in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 524 of 1994 (Joga Singh v. State of Punjab) after the receipt of the report of an enquiry dated 24.5.1995 conducted by the District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on the directions of this Court into the alleged detention and disappearance of Constables Rajwinder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh and murder of Baljit Singh after they were picked up by C.I.A Staff, Jalandhar on 31.8.1992, 30.8.1992 and 23.8.1992 respectively. The C.B.I had, after taking up the matter, registered the F.I.R and on completion of the investigation has submitted a charge sheet against 24 officials of the Page: 305Punjab Police. During the pendency of the investigation, these four separate petitions were filed by the petitioners in which the report of the District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar was sought to be assailed on the ground that they were never associated or summoned by him during the enquiry and the same was consequently against the principles of natural justice. It was also submitted that the Sessions Judge conducted an enquiry into two incidents, one relating to the escape from custody of Constables Raj winder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh and second into the death of Baljit Singh. No specific findings have been returned in relation to the former while regarding the latter, no specific allegations were made against the petitioners and, therefore, the F.I.R has been registered against the petitioners who are even not remotely connected with the criminal writ petition. It was also submitted that though the High Court had directed registration of the case against the persons arrarigned as accused in the writ petition, the investigation has implicated innocent persons without collecting any evidence. It is further submitted that the investigating agency has failed to explain whether Rajwinder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were actually killed in an encounter or they were alive even now and, therefore, the F.I.R and the investigations conducted thereafter in the incident of escape of Rajwinder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh do not disclose any offence against the petitioners. Furthermore, it was submitted that even if the version of the State regarding the complicity of the accused were, for the sake of arguments, to be accepted, then too, since the petitioners were members of police force who were acting in the discharge of their official duties, their actions would be protected by the provisions of Section 6 of the Punjab Disturbed Area Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1983 Act’) and no proceedings could be launched against them without the previous sanction of the Central Government.

3. In the reply filed by the respondent, it was denied that the petitioners have been wrongly cited as an accused. It was submitted that definite evidence has been collected about the role of the various petitioners in the incident which had taken place on 5/6th September, 1992 in which the petitioners had killed Vijay Pal Singh, one unidentified person and shown that Constables Rajwinder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh had escaped from custody during the encounter with the militants. This report regarding the escape of Rajwinder Singh and Mukhtiar singh during the investigation was found to be false and the investigation has also revealed that no encounter had actually taken place and in fact Vijay Pal Singh was killed in a false encounter and two other persons, namely Rajwinder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh v/ere falsely shown to have been escaped while they remained with the party headed by SI Ram Singh. In these circumstances, it was submitted that there was no occasion for extending the protection of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1983 Act to the case of the petitioners because the version sought to be put forth by one about Vijay Pal Singh, another person died in the encounter, and Rajwinder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh having managed to escape has been found to be false.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that two different versions are available before this Court, one as incorporated in the report of the investigating agency and the second, putting forth in detail the manner in which the incident had taken place as alleged by the petitioners. Since the petitioners were admittedly performing the duties of policy officials at a time when militancy in the State of Punjab was at its peak, they will clearly be entitled to the protection of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1983 Act, according to which no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the Central Government against any person in respect of anything done or purporting to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 4 and 5 of the 1983 Act.

6. In reply it was submitted that it view of the fact that the petitioners seek to invoke the protection incorporated in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1983 Act on the basis of a version which is being put forth by them, which is contrary to what has been found by the investigating agency during investigation, this Court would not in proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C determine the disputed questions of fact which are likely to be raised before the pleas taken by the parties are translated into judicial evidence. It was further submitted that the position that had emerged during investigation clearly shows that the petitioners who were required to act as guardian of law had abused their official position and not only killed three persons Page: 306but also fabricated the records in such a manner so as to built up a plea regarding their having acted in the discharge of their official duties. It was also submitted that in any case, the prosecution as a matter of abundant caution had taken sanction for prosecution of the petitioners from the competent authority and, therefore, the pleas sought to be raised would not be available to the petitioners.

7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. In the present case, the petitioners seek the quashing of F.I.R No. R.C 4(S)/97.SIU-V/SIC-II/CBI dated 5.2.1997 on the ground that the events as found by the C.B.I during investigation do not represent the true circumstances in which Vijay Pal Singh and one unidentified person were killed and Constables Rajwinder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh escaped from the custody. They assert that the report made by them regarding the escape of Constables Rajwinder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh and Vijay Pal Singh having been killed in an encounter was correct and the conclusions arrived at by the investigating agency were wrong. We, thus, have a case in which the petitioners seek to assail the veracity of the investigation and by disputing the factual conclusions arrived at by the investigating agency which are sought to be made the basis of the prosecution of the petitioners. Shri K.S Dhaliwal appearing for the petitioners has not been able to pin point how this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C would be able to go into the factual correctness of the prosecution case as against the defence raised by the petitioners. What the petitioners are asking this Court to do is the domain of the trial Court, as has been held in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991 (1) Recent C.R 383 and reiterated in Haridya Ranjan Pd. Verma v. State of Bihar, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 484, the High Court would interfere and quash only those proceedings:

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

9. Realising this difficulty, the petitioners sought to raise a jurisdictional aspect by saying that the trial Court could only proceed with the case, if the sanction had been accorded by the State Government for the prosecution of the petitioners as is required under Section 6 of the 1983 Act, which read as under:—

“6. Protection of persons acting under Sections 4 and 5.—No suit, prosecution or other legal Page: 307proceedings shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the State Government against any person in respect of anything done or purporting to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 4 and 5. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the State Government against any person in respect of anything done or purporting to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 4 and 5.”

10. This argument proceeds on the presumption that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners were covered by the provision of Section 4 of the 1983 Act, which read as under:—

“4. Power to fire upon persons contravening certain orders. - Any Magistrate or police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector or Havildar in case of Armed Branch of the police may, if he is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do for the maintenance of public order, after giving such due warning, as he may consider necessary, fire upon, or otherwise use the force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area, prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used as weapons or of fire arms, ammunition or explosive substances.”

11. A perusal of the above two sections shows that while Section 4 of the 1983 Act empowers (a) any Magistrate or police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector or Havildar in case of Armed Branch of the police may, (b) after giving due warning or otherwise, (c) fire upon or otherwise use the force, even to the causing of death against any person, (d) if he is of the opinion that it necessary to do so for the maintenance of any law or public order for the time being in force in the disturbed area, (e) which prohibits the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used as weapons or of fire arms, ammunition or explosive substances, the application of this section would require a detailed enquiry into the powers that were conferred on the petitioners, the question as to whether they had given a warning as also whether there was in force any law or order prohibiting the assembly of 5 or more persons, carrying of weapons, arms and ammunition or explosive substances. The facts necessary for attracting the application of Section 4 of the 1983 Act to the acts done by the petitioners will have to be proved by them before they can seek protection of Section 6 of the 1983 Act. Since the case of the investigating agency is that the stand of the petitioners as taken by them was found to be wrong during investigation and infact no encounter had taken place as alleged by them, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to opine on the correctness of the case of the prosecution or vis-a-vis the position sought to be put for th by the petitioners in their defence in these proceedings lest any expression on the merits of the case prejudices the case of either parties. The question as to whether the sanction required under Section 6 of the 1983 Act is required or not, will have to be raised by the petitioners before the trial Court at the first stage after bringing on record the admissible evidence in support of this contention.

12. There is another angle from which the stand of the petitioners can be examined and that is the question as to whether the petitioners can be heard to say that the acts alleged to have been done by them which ordinarily may constitute culpable homicide can in law be treated to have been done by them in the discharge of their official duties. The answer to this question would again depend upon whether or not the petitioners are able to prove the stand sought to be put forth by them in defence, after leading admissible evidence in proof of their contentions. Such being the disputed nature of the controversy which is being raised before this Court, I am of the considered view that the relief of quashing of the F.I.R and the consequential proceedings thereto cannot be given to the petitioners.

13. For the reasons recorded above, the present petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.