Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh

“Procedure adopted by trial court is unknown to law — Power to summon or prosecute additional accused exists only at cognizance or evidence stage, not after conclusion of trial.” - Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, decisively held that a trial court cannot order filing of a challan or initiate prosecution against new persons after concluding trial and convicting others, without invoking statutory provisions or affording them a hearing.

Allowing two connected petitions filed by DSP Veer Singh and the State of Haryana, the Court quashed the directions issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, in paragraph 28 of its judgment dated February 23, 2022, which had ordered the Home Secretary, Haryana, and D.G., CID Vigilance to file a challan against the DSP and other police officials within two months.

Justice Bedi observed that such a direction was issued “without any jurisdiction and in complete disregard of the mandatory procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court Rules.”

“Trial Court Exceeded Jurisdiction — Directions to Prosecute Officials Post-Trial Held Illegal and Void”

“If the Court intended to summon new accused, it could have resorted to Section 193 or 319 Cr.P.C. — issuing directions after conviction of others is impermissible.”

The case stemmed from FIR No.381 of 2010 registered under Sections 166, 347, 384, 120-B IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against certain police officials of Gurugram. While convicting four of them on February 23, 2022, the trial court went further to direct that a challan be filed against DSP Veer Singh (then Inspector) and three constables who were not arrayed as accused, observing that “adequate evidence” was available against them.

Justice Bedi termed this course “procedurally alien to criminal jurisprudence”, clarifying that the trial court could have exercised power under Section 193 Cr.P.C. (to take cognizance at the initial stage) or Section 319 Cr.P.C. (to summon additional accused during evidence), but not at the stage of judgment after trial completion.

“The power to summon or proceed against additional accused exists only at the stage of cognizance or during recording of evidence — not after conviction of others. The procedure adopted by the trial court is unknown to law,” the Court declared.

“Audi Alteram Partem Violated — Adverse Directions Issued Without Hearing the Officer”

“No person can be condemned unheard — principles of natural justice are not ornamental but foundational.”

Justice Bedi found that the trial court had directed prosecution of DSP Veer Singh and others without giving them any opportunity to defend themselves or to explain their conduct. Such an omission, he held, violated the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary [(2019) 5 RCR (Criminal) 133], the Court emphasized:

“Directions to prosecute officials without affording them a hearing or following statutory procedure are unsustainable and liable to be quashed.”

He reiterated that adverse judicial remarks or directions must satisfy three conditions laid down in State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim (AIR 1964 SC 703) — (i) the person affected must have had an opportunity to be heard, (ii) remarks must be supported by evidence on record, and (iii) they must be necessary for adjudication of the case.

“None of these tests were fulfilled before the trial court issued sweeping directions against the petitioner. The order, therefore, stands vitiated for breach of natural justice,” Justice Bedi observed.

“Judicial Restraint in Remarks Against Police Officers — High Court Rules Mandate Procedural Compliance”

“Courts must exercise restraint while censuring police officials — Rule 6 of the High Court Rules was completely ignored.”

Referring to Chapter I, Part H, Rule 6 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, the Court highlighted that judges must not censure police officials unless such remarks are strictly relevant and supported by evidence, and even then, a copy of the judgment must be sent to the District Magistrate and the Registrar of the High Court following the Home Secretary’s 1936 circular.

Justice Bedi noted that the trial court’s order failed to comply with this mandatory procedural safeguard, thereby undermining the principles of judicial discipline.

“Criticism of police conduct must be restrained and relevant. The trial court’s omission to follow Rule 6 of the High Court Rules before issuing adverse directions renders its order without authority of law,” he observed.

“Adverse Judicial Directions Must Be Relevant, Necessary, and Fair”

The Court also cited the decisions in State of Punjab v. M/s Shikha Trading Co. (2023), R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan (1975) 2 SCC 466, and K.G. Shanti v. United India Insurance Co. (2021) 5 SCC 511, reiterating that adverse remarks against any officer or public servant should be sparingly made, and only when indispensable to the case outcome.

“Adverse remarks and prosecution directions should not be made lightly. The judicial power must reflect restraint, moderation, and fairness,” Justice Bedi stated, echoing the Supreme Court’s guidance that “words employed in judgments should reflect sobriety and reserve.”

“Trial Court’s Directions Quashed — Judicial Process Must Follow Law, Not Impulse”

Allowing both petitions, the Court concluded: “In view of the above discussion, the directions issued in paragraph 28 of the judgment dated 23.02.2022 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed.”

Justice Bedi clarified that while courts are empowered to act against erring officials, such powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with law and procedure, not by summary directives issued at the conclusion of trial.

“Judicial discipline demands that no person be subjected to prosecution or adverse remark without notice, evidence, and opportunity of hearing,” the Court underscored.

This ruling serves as a critical reaffirmation of procedural propriety and judicial restraint, reminding subordinate courts that justice must be administered through law, not discretion. Justice Bedi’s judgment protects the integrity of due process by emphasizing that the judiciary’s moral authority flows from its adherence to fairness, not from arbitrary exercise of power.

“Courts are the guardians of justice — not the instruments of administrative prosecution,” Justice Bedi cautioned, ensuring that the principles of natural justice remain the cornerstone of criminal adjudication

Date of Decision: September 30, 2025