CWP-PIL-229- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Yashpal Marken State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. raising the public cause that despite commission of cognizable offence by respondent No.5, no FIR has been lodged against him due to his closeness to persons in power. investigation of and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Phase 8, SAS Nagar 2. person, that FIR No. 220 dated 14.08.2025 for offence punishable under Section 3 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been registered against respondent No.5 at Police Station Phase 1, District SAS Nagar. Therefore, prayer contained in para (1) of prayer clause of this petition has become infructuous. -2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Yashpal Marken Versus State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Mr. Yashpal Marken – Petitioner in person. Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. **** SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral ) This petition has been preferred in the shape of PIL allegedly raising the public cause that despite commission of cognizable offence by respondent No.5, no FIR has been lodged against him due to his closeness to in power. Peripheral directions have also been sought for proper investigation of FIR No. 65 dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Phase 8, SAS Nagar, by an independent agency, It is not disputed at the Bar by the petitioner, who is appearing in person, that FIR No. 220 dated 14.08.2025 for offence punishable under Section 3 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of ties) Act, 1989, has been registered against respondent No.5 at Police Station Phase 1, District SAS Nagar. Therefore, prayer contained in para (1) of prayer clause of this petition has become infructuous. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-PIL-229-2025 Date of decision : 11.09.2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Petitioner in person. Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. ( Oral ) preferred in the shape of PIL allegedly raising the public cause that despite commission of cognizable offence by respondent No.5, no FIR has been lodged against him due to his closeness to Peripheral directions have also been sought for proper FIR No. 65 dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station , by an independent agency, other than the State of Punjab. It is not disputed at the Bar by the petitioner, who is appearing in person, that FIR No. 220 dated 14.08.2025 for offence punishable under Section 3 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of ties) Act, 1989, has been registered against respondent No.5 at Police Station Phase 1, District SAS Nagar. Therefore, prayer contained in para (1) of prayer clause of this petition has become infructuous. 2025 .2025 …….Petitioner ...….Respondents preferred in the shape of PIL allegedly raising the public cause that despite commission of cognizable offence by respondent No.5, no FIR has been lodged against him due to his closeness to Peripheral directions have also been sought for proper 2) under Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station other than the State of Punjab. It is not disputed at the Bar by the petitioner, who is appearing in person, that FIR No. 220 dated 14.08.2025 for offence punishable under Section 3 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of ties) Act, 1989, has been registered against respondent No.5 at Police Station Phase 1, District SAS Nagar. Therefore, prayer contained in para (1) of NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.12 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-PIL-229- 3. (Annexure P tampering of evidence of voice sample, during the process of investigation of. 3.1 FIR No. 65 has c matter is now to be taken up by jurisdictional Magistrate. 3.2 to accept or not to accept the cancellation report filed by the pol therefore, the petition appears to be pre 4. of this Court to a decision of Apex Court in of India, 1992 (4) SCC 653 to a prosecution cannot assail conviction or sentence particular accused and, therefore, PIL of such nature is not maintainable, as held in Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and others, 1991 (3) SCC 5. 6. Court at opportune time, as and when occasion arises. September 11, 2025 narotam Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2025 As regards re-investigation of FIR No. 65 date (Annexure P-2) by an independent agency is concerned, petitioner also alleges tampering of evidence of voice sample, during the process of investigation of. However, this Court is informed that investigation in aforesaid FIR No. 65 has culminated into submission of cancellation report and the matter is now to be taken up by jurisdictional Magistrate. This Court is of the considered view that since the Magistrate has to accept or not to accept the cancellation report filed by the pol therefore, the petition appears to be pre-mature. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab has also drawn attention of this Court to a decision of Apex Court in of India, 1992 (4) SCC 653, where it is laid to a prosecution cannot assail conviction or sentence particular accused and, therefore, PIL of such nature is not maintainable, as Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and others, 1991 (3) SCC Accordingly, we decline to entertain this petition. Petition stands dismissed with liberty to petitioner to re Court at opportune time, as and when occasion arises. September 11, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -2- investigation of FIR No. 65 dated 24.05.2022 agency is concerned, petitioner also alleges tampering of evidence of voice sample, during the process of investigation of. However, this Court is informed that investigation in aforesaid ulminated into submission of cancellation report and the matter is now to be taken up by jurisdictional Magistrate. This Court is of the considered view that since the Magistrate has to accept or not to accept the cancellation report filed by the police authorities, mature. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab has also drawn attention of this Court to a decision of Apex Court in Simranjit Singh Mann Vs. Union , where it is laid down that third party or a stranger to a prosecution cannot assail conviction or sentence order passed against any particular accused and, therefore, PIL of such nature is not maintainable, as Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and others, 1991 (3) SCC 756. Accordingly, we decline to entertain this petition. Petition stands dismissed with liberty to petitioner to re-visit the Court at opportune time, as and when occasion arises. ( SHEEL NAGU ) CHIEF JUSTICE ( SANJIV BERRY ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No d 24.05.2022 agency is concerned, petitioner also alleges tampering of evidence of voice sample, during the process of investigation of. However, this Court is informed that investigation in aforesaid ulminated into submission of cancellation report and the This Court is of the considered view that since the Magistrate has ice authorities, Learned counsel for the State of Punjab has also drawn attention Simranjit Singh Mann Vs. Union down that third party or a stranger order passed against any particular accused and, therefore, PIL of such nature is not maintainable, as visit the NAROTAM DASS 2025.09.12 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment