Back
Court Rejection of in Alleged Theft: Judicial Oversight in FIR No. 56 Under BNS –
The judiciary has once again asserted its mandate to oversee , as the , presided over by Prabha Prashar, rejected a second filed by the in an alleged theft case involving high-profile figures. The case, registered under , concerns the mysterious removal of valuables from the residence of the late Additional District Judge Kanwaljit Singh shortly after his death.
The Backdrop: A Death and an Allegation The investigation originated from a complaint by Dr. Bhupinder Singh Virk, a professor at , who acted as a Special Power of Attorney for the deceased judge’s sons, Angadpal Singh and Arjan Pal Singh. Dr. Virk alleged that on the night of , while the late judge’s body remained at , several individuals—including civil judge Bikramdeep Singh, house help Amarjot Kaur (alias Pinki), and Gaurav Goel—entered the residence and extracted cash and ancestral jewellery.
Following intense public scrutiny and a denied by the accused judge in , the investigation took an unexpected turn when the complainant suddenly claimed the FIR was a product of "misunderstanding" and that the items had subsequently been recovered at the house.
Deficiencies in the Investigation The , acting on the complainant's change of stance, filed for a closure of the case. However, the Court found the investigating agency’s reliance on superficial arguments insufficient. In its order, the Court highlighted several critical lapses:
- Failure to Scrutinize CCTV Evidence: Despite clear footage showing individuals carrying bags from the residence, the failed to identify specific items or verify their recovery through any formal inventory or .
- Reliance on Unverified Affidavits: The investigation depended heavily on e-mail affidavits purportedly sent by the deceased's sons. The Court remained unmoved, noting that these cannot substitute for formal statements to be recorded in person or via video conferencing.
- Lack of Corroboration: Allegations that a telephonic conversation occurred between the accused judge and the deceased's son were left unverified, with the failing to obtain call detail records or transcripts.
Key Observations Emphasizing the duty of the Court to ensure justice, Magistrate Prashar stated:
"The is silent regarding the necessity of their presence and their specific role in removing the articles. The subsequent statement of complainant Dr. Bhupinder Singh Virk expressing no objection to acceptance of the also cannot be made basis, as he admittedly acted only as Special Power of Attorney holder of the sons of the deceased."
Furthermore, reiterating the necessity of independent , the Court noted:
"The offences alleged under are in nature and cannot be permitted to be closed merely because the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the matter."
The Road Ahead By rejecting the report, the Court has ordered the to undertake a comprehensive, evidence-based investigation. This includes the preparation of an inventory of assets, the procurement of electronic evidence regarding the alleged telephonic communications, and the direct recording of statements from the legal heirs.
This decision reaffirms the legal principle that Trial Courts must apply an during the consideration of a , particularly in cases involving serious allegations that cannot be settled by private compromise. The matter has been remanded back to the for strict compliance, marking a significant hurdle for those seeking an early closure of the case without a thorough investigation.
