WWW.LIVELAW.IN
N.C.R.B f Ȣ]Ȣ
I.I.F.-I fȧǙȡȱ
ȡ[I)
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.) Ĥ Ǘ
ȡǐȪ[ ȡȡȲĤͩĐȡ Ǒ¡Ȳȡȯ¡ 1.
District ǔȡ CHANDIGARH
P.S. ȡȡ P.S.NORTH
Year [
FIR No. Ĥ Ǘǐ Ȳ
Date and Time of FIR Ĥ ǗǐȧǑȡȲk hrs
2.
Acts \ͬǓ
Sections ȡȡ fȱ 8
5
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IPC 1860
6
IPC 1860
420
7
IPC 1860
120-B
S.No.
Đ Ȳ 1 2 3 4
3.
(a)
9 13(1)d 13(2) 409
Occurrence of offence \ȡȧ ȡ
1
(b)
(c)
4. 5.
Day Ǒ
Date from ǑȡȲ ȯ
Date To ǑȡȲ
Time Period \ͬ
Time From ȯ
Time To
Information received at P.S. ȡȡ¡ȡȲ Ǘ
ȡ
Date ǑȡȲ
Time
ĤȡÜ¡Ǖ_
hrs
General Diary Reference Ȫȡ
ȡ
Entry No. Ĥͪǔç Ȳ
Ȳ[
Date and Time
ǑȡȲk hrs
Type of Information Ǘ
ȡȡĤȡ Written Place of Occurrence
ȡè 1.
(a) Direction and distance from P.S. ȡȡ ȯǗȣkǑȡ Km(s) (b) Address ȡ CHANDIGARH ,
1
Beat No. Ȣ Ȳ
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
N.C.R.B f Ȣ]Ȣ I.I.F.-I fȧǙȡȱ
ȡ[I)
(c) In case, outside the limit of this Police Station, then Name of P.S. Ǒȡȡ Ȣȡȯȡ¡ ¡ȰȪȡȡȡȡ District (State) ǔȡ ȡÏ 6.
Complainant / Informant ͧȡȡ[ Ǘ
ȡȡ[ (a)
Name ȡ ORDER OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT CHD
(b)
Father's/Husband's Name ͪȡǓȡȡ
(c)
Date/Year of Birth ÛǓͬ[
(e)
UID No. Ǘ]_Ȣ Ȳ
(f)
Passport No. ȡ Ȫ[ Ȳ Date of Issue ȡȣȯȧǑȡȲ
(g)
PB AND HR
(d) Nationality ȡçĚȣȡ INDIA
Place of Issue ȡȣȯȡèȡ
ID Details (Ration Card, Voter ID Card, Passport, UID No., Driving License, PAN) ¡
ȡ ͪ ȡȡ[ȡȡȡ[ȡ Ȫ[Ǘ]_Ȣ ȲĜȡ^ͪȲȡ^ Ʌ Ȱȡ[ S. No.
Đ Ȳ
ID Type ¡
ȡğȡĤȡ ID Number ¡
ȡ ȲÉȡ
(h)
Occupation å ȡ
(i)
Address
ȡ S.No. Đ Ȳ Address Type ȡȡ
Address ȡ
Ĥȡ
(j)
1
Present Address
2
Permanent Address
PB AND HR HIGH COURT , CHANDIGARH, P.S.NORTH, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH, INDIA PB AND HR HIGH COURT , CHANDIGARH, P.S.NORTH, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH, INDIA
Phone number Ǘȡ Ȳ
Mobile Ȫȡ^ Ȳ
2
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
N.C.R.B f Ȣ]Ȣ I.I.F.-I fȧǙȡȱ
ȡ[I)
7.
Details of known / suspected / unknown accused with full particulars £ȡ ȲǑÊ\£ȡ\ͧǕÈ ȡǗȯͪ Ǒ¡[ Accused More Than \£ȡ]ȪȢf ȯ\ͬ¡ɉȪ ȲÉȡ S. No.
Đ Ȳ
8.
Name ȡ
Alias `ȡ
Relative's Name
ǐæȯȡȡȡ
1
DR. BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA
2
SUNITA
Father's Name: RANJEET SINGH
3
SUSHILA
Husband's Name: RAM BHAGAT
Present Address([ȡȡ 1. REGISTRAR PB AND HR HIGH COURT,CHANDIGARH,P.S.NO RTH,CHANDIGARH,CHANDI GARH,INDIA 1. RZP 29,NEW ROSHANPURA,NAZAFGARH, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI,DELHI,INDIA 1. 55,SECTOR 5,PANCHKULA,PANCHKULA SECTOR5,PANCHKULA,HARYANA,IN DIA
Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant / informant ͧȡȡ[ Ǘ
ȡȡ[ɮȡȡǐȪ[ ȯȣ ȯ[ȡȯȯȡ
9.
Particulars of properties of interest ȲǔÛ àǔ×ȡͪ S. No.
Đ Ȳ
Description Propertty Category àǔ×Property Type
àǔ×ȯĤȡ ͪ ĮȯȢ
10.
Total value of property (In Rs/-) àǔ×ȡǕǗã ǽɅ
11.
Inquest Report / U.D. case No., if any Ǚ×Ǖ Ȣ¢ȡǐȪ[ǗLȢLĤ Ȳ
Value(In Rs/-)
Ǘã ǽɅ
ǑȪ_¡Ȫ S. No.
Đ Ȳ 12.
UIDB Number ǗLȢLĤ Ȳ
First Information contents Ĥ Ǘ
ȡØ
ȯȡȯ^ȪHonble PB and HR High Court Chandigarh ȯorders in CRM-M No. 28947 of 2017 (OM) dated 19.09.2017 ȡȡEnquiry Report Vide No. 5421/RHC (6) with annexures ȫ Ǘȡȡ¡Ǖ_¡ȰȪǕȡǒorders Dated 15.09.2017 in CRM-M No. 28947 of 2017 (OM) ǕÈȡ[ȯȡ¡ǕÈȡȡ¡Ȱǔ ȡǗȰ¡ȰCRM-M No. 28947 of 2017 (O and M), Suman vs State of Haryana and Others, Present: Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for respondent No. 5, Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate for respondent No. 06. Mr. Tajeshwar Singh 3
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
N.C.R.B f Ȣ]Ȣ I.I.F.-I fȧǙȡȱ
ȡ[I)
Advocate for the applicant in CRM No. 29552/2017, 1. Reply to the petition filed by respondent No. 6 High Court, in Court, is taken on record. Copy furnished to counsel of the petitioner. 2. The State of Haryana has not filed any reply despite opportunity granted. 3. In the case in hand, the petitioner, who claims herself to be a candidate for HCS( Judicial Branch) Examination, file the present petition raising an issue that the question paper for the preliminary examination conducted on 16.07.2017 was leaked. In support of her stand, she has placed on record a CD and text of certain conversation, which had taken place between the petitioner and one Sushila, another candidate, which according to the petitioner suggested that there was leakage of question paper. She also claimed that a complaint was made to the High Court on the administrative side as well. 4. Along with the reply filed by the High Court today, copy of the report of the enquiry conducted by the registrar (Vigilance) on the Complaint dated 19.07.2017 filed by on Manoj, husband of the petitioner, has been annexed. Statements of certain persons concerned, including petitioner Suman and respondent no. 5Sushila, were recorded. After considering the material produced before the Registrar (Vigilance), the following conclusions were drawn:- i. That Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) Handled and was having custody of the question papers from the time the question paper was set till the question papers were distributed for the examination. ii. That Ms. Sunita and Ms. Sushila were having the copies of the question paper for HCS(JB) Preliminary Examination 2017 before the above said examination. iii. That Ms. Sunita was previously known to and having acquaintance with Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) and that Ms. Sushila was known to and having acquaintance with Sunita and Ms. Suman was known to and having acquaintance with Ms. Sushila before HCS (JB) Preliminary Examination 2017, and iv. That Ms. Sunita procured copy of question paper for HCS(JB) Preliminary Examination 2017 from Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) and thereafter she supplied copy thereof to Ms. Sushila and negotiated with Ms. Suman for supplying copy of the question paper to her for consideration. 5. The Registrar (Vigilance), opined that the matter requires further deeper probe. 6.The report was put up before Hon ble the Recruitment/ Promotion/Court Creation committee (Subordinate Judicial Service). The committee in its meeting held on 29.08.2017 considering the report submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance), made the following recommendation:-, (a) In view of the prima facie finding that at least two candidates namely Ms. Sunita and Sushila had the question papers and therefore the possibility that other candidates may have also had access to the question paper can not be ruled out in such circumstances, purity of the examination having been lost, the Committee recommends that the HCS (JB)Preliminary Examination 2017 held on 16.07.2017 be scrapped. (b) Keeping in view the finding that Dr. Balwinder Sharma Registrar (Recruitment) unequivocally stated that he had no prior acquaintance with Ms. Sunita (the topper in general category), while the call details given by the service provider reveal that there were a total of 760 call and SMSs exchanged between Dr. Balwinder Sharma and Ms. Sunita during the last one year, indicate that the matter requires a deeper probe. Therefore, the Committee recommends that regular enquiry be initiated against Dr. Balwinder Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) on the Basis of preliminary enquiry. (c) Dr. Balwinder Sharma Registrar (Recruitment) be transferred forthwith from this post pending further action. (D) An FIR be lodged against Ms. Sunita, Ms. Sushila and Dr. Balwinder Sharma, Registrar (recruitment) to further probe the act of leakage of question paper of HCS (JB) Preliminary Examination 2017. 7. The matter was put up before Honble the Chief Justice. While It was still under consideration, Sunita appeared. Her statement was directed to be recorded. It was partly recorded on 31.08.2017 when she appeared before the Registrar (Vigilance). However, the same could not be completed, as she claimed some health problem. She was directed to appear on 1.9.2017, but failed. Thereafter, when she was contacted, she informed that she was admitted in Civil Hospital, Mohali, hence, unable to come and get her statement recorded. Finally, the OSD (Vigilance) was deputed to get her statement recorded. The needful was done 7.9.2017 by visiting Kalyani Hospital, Nazafgarh, New Delhi, where her statement was recorded by Mr. Rajesh Garg, OSD (Vigilance). Entire material along with the statements of Sunita was again put up before Honble the Chief Justice, who vide noting dated 10.09.2017 agreed to the recommendations made by the committee in para Nos a, b and c, as referred in 4
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
N.C.R.B f Ȣ]Ȣ I.I.F.-I fȧǙȡȱ
ȡ[I)
para no 6, above. As regards recommendations made in parad, considering the fact that the matter was pending on judicial side, orders were awaited. 8. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court fairly submitted that keeping in view gravity of the issues involved, the High Court does not have any objection in case the matter is got investigated from an independent agency, however, the investigation should be by some senior officers, preferably by constituting a Special Investigating Team. He further submitted that the examination having been conducted at Chandigarh and even in the complaint filed by Manoj, it is claimed that some conversation or transaction had taken place in Sector 17 at Chandigarh, hence, it would be appropriate if FIR is registered at Chandigarh. He further suggested that it would be necessary to monitor the investigation as well, as the issue involved is required to be taken to logical end and truth is required to be unearthed. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid fair stand taken by the High Court, in our view, FIR deserves to be registered at Chandigarh, initially in terms of the recommendation made in para d of the report of the Committee, for further investigation by constituting Special Investigating Team. Ordered accordingly. 10. Let a copy of the order be supplied to Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Public Prosecutor, UT, Chandigarh, who has put in appearance on our asking, for getting the needful done. He is requested to submit list of the senior officers, who can be the members of the Special Investigating Team, in a sealed cover on the next date of hearing. 11. The Director General of Police, UT, Chandigarh is requested to appear in person in Court on the next date of hearing. 12. The Union Territory, Chandigarh, through its Home Secretary, is directed to be impleaded as respondent no. 7 in the petition. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction. 13. It is made clear that with reference to the alleged leakage of question paper in question, investigation shall be made by the Chandigarh Police only. 14. Keeping in view the seriousness of the matter and report of the Registrar (Vigilance), prima facie, pointing out involvement of Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) and further recommendations made by the Committee for deeper probe and disciplinary action against him, we recommend that the officer be placed under suspension with immediate effect pending disciplinary proceedings, fixing his head quarter at any place other than Chandigarh. 15. Adjourned to 18.09.2017. 16. To be taken up at 2.00 pm. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge, (Rajan Gupta) Judge, (G.S. Sandhawalia) Judge 15.09.217 ȡ[ȡ¡ȣǕͧ \ȡȡ¡è]vide Orders in Petition CRM-M No. 28947 of 2017 (OM) Dated 19.09.2017 and 15.09.2017 of Honble Pb and HR High Court ȡHCS (Judiciary) Exam ȪǓͬȪ¡Ǖ] ȡȯȯLeak ¡ȪȯȯȡȯɅǕÈȡ[ȯȡ]ȯ¡Ǖ]¡ȰȪOrder No. CRM-M No. 28947 of 2017 (O M) ȧPhotocopy (Pages 1 to 12 and 1 to 4) Enquiry Report with annexure (i. Enquiry report of Registrar Vigilance form Page 1 to 48, ii) Evidence of Enquiry Report from Page 1 to 108, iii). Exhibits of Enquiry Report From Page 1 to 126, iv). Transcript of Call recording from Page 1 to 100, v). Zimni Order and Call Details from Page 1 to 206, vi). Complaint made by Sh. Manoj from Page 1 to 8) ǔ ǕÈȡ¡ȡ`ÈȡǕ[ U/s 8, 9, 13(1)(D) r/w 13(2) PC Act, 409, 420, 120 B IPC ͨȡDr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma Registrar (Recruitments) Punjab and Haryana High court Chandigarh, ȡMs. Sunita D/o Sh. Ranjeet Singh r/o R.Z.P 29 New Roshanpura Najafgarh New Delhi ȡMs. Sushila w/o Sh. Ram Bhagat r/o H No. 55 Sector 5, Panchkula HR, ȡ\Û[ǔèȡȡ ȯ\ ¡ȣFIR ͧ Ǖͧ ȡȯ]^ÛȡÝȢas per direction ¡ȡȯ Sh. Krishan Kumar DSP Security and Traffic Central ȧ_]^ÛȡǕÈȡ¡ȡȧSpecial Report \ȡSenior Officers ȪȯȢȡ¡ȣ¡Ȱ@
13. 5
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
N.C.R.B f Ȣ]Ȣ I.I.F.-I fȧǙȡȱ
ȡ[I)
Action taken: Since the above information reveals commission of offence(s) u/s as mentioned at Item No. 2. ȧȢȡ[ȡ¡ȣ
ǗȲͩ`ȪÈȡȡȣ ȯȡ
ȡ¡Ȱͩ\ȡȯȡȣȡ Ȳ Ʌ`ãȯȡȡȯ¡¡Ȱ (1)
Registered the case and took up the investigation Ĥ[ͩȡȡkȡȲ
ȯͧf ͧȡȡ or ( ȡ
(2)
Directed (Name of I.O.) ȡȲ
\ͬȡȣȡȡ Krishan Kumar
Rank Dy. SP (Deputy Superintendant of Police)
No. Ȳ to take up the Investigation ȪȡȲ
\ȯȡ ɅȯȯȯͧfǓȶ Ǒȡȡ or ȡ (3)
Refused investigation due to ȡȲ
ȯͧf or ȯȡ^Ȳȡͩȡȡ
(4)
Transferred to P.S. ȡȡ
District ǔ«ȡ
on point of jurisdiction Ȫ¢ȯğȡͬȡȯȡ ¡èȡȲǐ F.I.R. read over to the complainant / informant, admitted to be correctly recorded and a copy given to the complainant /informant, free of cost. ͧȡȡ[ Ǘ
ȡȡ[ȪĤȡͧȧ± Ǖȡ_Ȣ ¡ȣ[¡Ǖ_ȡȡkfȨȢǓǕãͧȡȡ[ȪȣȢ R.O.A.C.
]jf Ȣ
Signature of Officer in charge, Police Station ȡȡĤȡȣȯ¡èȡ¢ 14.
Name ȡ Poonam Dilawari
Signature / Thumb impression of the complainant / informant ͧȡȡ[
Rank I (Inspector) No. Ȳ 314CHG
Ǘ
ȡȡ[ȯ¡èȡ¢\ȲǗȯ ȡǓȡ 15.
Date and time of dispatch to the court \ȡɅĤȯȧǑȡȲk
Attachment to item 7 of First Information Report Ĥ Ǘ
ȡǐȪ[ȯ ȲÊ Physical features, deformities and other details of the suspect/accused: ( If known / seen )
6
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
N.C.R.B f Ȣ]Ȣ I.I.F.-I fȧǙȡȱ
ȡ[I)
ȲǑÊ\ͧǕÈȧȡȣǐͪȯȡfȱͪǙǓȡȱk\Ûͪ
Ǒ£ȡȯȡȡ S. No. Sex
Đ Ȳ ͧȲ
Date / Year Build Of Birth
ȡ
ÛǓͬ
Height Complexion (cms) Ȳ
[
ȯȢ
Identification Mark(s) ¡
ȡ ͬ
Û¡
1
2
1
Male
3
4
5
1982
6
7
Is Proxitted: No
2
Female
1992
Is Proxitted: No
3
Female
1989
Is Proxitted: No
Deformities / Peculiarities
ͪǙǓȡȱ
Teeth ȡȱ Hair ȡ
Eye ]ȱɅ
Habit(s) (]Ʌ
Dress Habit (s)
¡ȡȡ
ͪͧçȡfȱ 8
9
10
11
Place of ȡèȡ
Language/Dial ect ȡȡȪȣ
Burn Mark Leucoderma Mole
ȯ¡Ǖfȡ ǕȪȯȡ[
è ȡ Ǔȡ 14
12
15
Others \Û
Scar ȡ
17
Tattoo Ǘȯ ¡Ǖfȡ
¹ȯÞȯ 16
13
18
19
20
These fields will be entered only if complainant/informant gives any one or more particulars about the suspect/accused.
¡¢ȯğȢ[ͩfȡfȲȯǑͧȡȡ[ Ǘ
ȡȡ[ ȲǑÊ\ͧǕÈȯȡȯɅȪ_fȡ ` ȯ\ͬȡȡȣȯȡ¡Ȱ
7
