Back
1998(6) Supreme 243
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
G.T. Nanavati, S.P. Kurdukar & S.S. Mohammed Quadri, JJ.
Arvindervir Singh -Appellant
versus
State of Punjab & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3530 of 1997)
Decided on 5-8-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Sudhir Walia, and M.S. Dahiya, Advocates.
For the Respondent : R.S. Sodhi, Advocate.
For the C.B.I. : Rajeev Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.
Held : This Court had not directed the CBI to file a challan against the appellant and other three police officers for the offences under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC in the Designated Court, Chandigarh. This Court had also not directed that Designated Court to proceed with the trial against those police officers for the said offences. The direction given by this Court should have been read and understood in the context of the facts of that case. An offence was registered as FIR No. 10/93 in respect of murder of Kulwant Singh and his wife and their two year old child. After investigation the police had filed a chargesheet against Harpreet Singh @ Lucky in the Designated Court, Nabha. After the trial had commenced in that Court the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association had moved the High Court with a petition to direct CBI to conduct further investigation as it felt that the police had filed a false case against Harpreet Singh. The High Court having dismissed that writ petition an appeal was filed in this Court. Feeling the necessity of further investigation by the CBI this Court passed an order to that effect and after submission of final report by the CBI and consideration thereof this Court disposed of the appeal by giving certain directions. As Harpreet Singh was found to have been involved in the offence of murder falsely he was directed to be acquitted and the Government was directed to pay compensation to him. The Government was also directed to pay compensation to the parents of Kulwant Singh. This Court then ordered transfer of the trial from Designated Court at Nabha to the Designated Court at Chandigarh. It may be recalled that the trial which was pending in the Designated Court at Nabha was in respect of murder of Kulwant Singh and his family members. Even though Harpreet Singh was ordered to be acquitted this Court did not want that trial to be treated as concluded and, therefore, it was transferred from the Designated Court at Nabha to the Designated Court at Chandigarh. The reason why this Court did not want the said trial to be treated as over and transferred it from the Designated Court at Nabha to the Designated Court at Chandigarh is to be found in the last part of Paragraph 1 of the judgment. Even though the CBI had reported that the investigation made by it did not reveal any evidence to show who had caused the murder of Kulwant Singh and his family members and that there was no evidence against the suspected police officers to connect with kidnapping and killing of Kulwant Singh and his family members, this Court took the view that whether the circumstances were sufficient to prosecute them or not is a matter for the Court to consider. This Court then observed that it would be open to the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association and the Prosecutor to argue before the trial Court that the material collected by the CBI shows that the police officers are prima facie responsible for the abduction and murder of Kulwant Singh and his family and are liable for prosecution for offences under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Since this Court did not accept the suggestion of the CBI not to proceed against the police officers for the abduction and murder of Kulwant Singh and his family members it ordered transfer of the trial from the Designated Court at Nabha to the Designated Court at Chandigarh and directed the CBI to file the necessary challan before that Court. Obviously, the challan which was directed to be filed against the police officers was in the trial which was transferred from the Designated Court at Nabha to the Designated Court at Chandigarh and that trial was for the offence of abduction and murder of Kulwant Singh and his family members. The direction was not to file a challan against those police officers for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC. It was in respect of trial for the offence of abduction and murder that the State Government was directed to grant sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court was directed to conclude that trial expeditiously. What we have stated above becomes clear if the observations made in the last part of Paragraph 1 of the judgment are read with the directions given in Paragraph 4 of the judgment. It was the CBI which misunderstood the direction and instead of filing of chargesheet against the police officers for the offence of abduction and murder of Kulwant Singh and his family members filed it for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC. Obviously, this Court was not unaware of the provisions contained in Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, could not have directed the CBI to file a challan for the offence under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC in the Designated Court at Chandigarh and directed that Court to try those offences. It was, therefore, not proper and legal for the Designated Court at Chandigarh to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC and to proceed with the trial of those offences against the appellant and the other three police officers. However, the proceed issued by the Designated Court against them need not be set aside as inquiry contemplated by Section 340(1) of the Code has already been held by this Court and a finding has been recorded that they appear to have committed these offences in relations to the proceeding which was pending in the Designated Court at Nabha. In view of sub-section (2) of Section 340 it was competent for this Court to exercise the power of the trial Court under Section 340(1) and hold an inquiry. As the appellant and the three police officers prima facie appear to have committed the said offences it was open to the Designated Court at Chandigarh, now that the case has been transferred to that court, to have issued process under clause (d) to take security for their appearance before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try those offences. We, therefore, partly allow this appeal quash the taking of cognizance by the Designated Court of the offences under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC and direct that court to make a complaint in writing to a Magistrate having jurisdiction in respect of those offences. The CBI is also directed to file an additional challan against the appellant and the other three police officers as directed by this Court by its judgment in the case of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association (1996(4) SCC 742). The State Government is also directed to comply with the direction given in that case and as clarified by us. The Designated Court at Chandigarh will then complete the trial as expeditiously as possible. (Paras 11 to 14)
Judgment
Nanavati, J.-Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Misc. No. 21068 of 1997. The appellant had filed that application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for getting quashed the criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to R.C. No. 33 of 1993 dated 8.10.93 filed the C.B.I. and the report made under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to the Designated Court, on the ground that the said complaint and the report do not disclose commission of any offence and that initiation of the said proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. The High Court by its order dated 24.9.97 dismissed that application on the ground that the intention of the appellant was to delay the proceedings and that no formal complaint under Section 195(1)(b) was required for issuing the process and that it will be open to the appellant to take all the pleas including the plea that the complaint does not disclose any offence, at the time of framing of the charge.
3. The proceedings against the appellant have come to be initiated under the following circumstances. On 8.2.93 a criminal offence was registered at Ropar Police Station against one Harpreet Singh alias Lucky, on the basis of a ‘Ruqua’ sent by the appellant who was S.H.O. of Ropar Police Station. It was alleged that Harpreet Singh alias Lucky and one Surjeet Singh had abducted advocate Kulwant Singh, his wife and his child with an intention to murder them. During interrogation Harpreet Singh was stated to have disclosed that he and Surjeet Singh had already committed murders of those three persons. On the basis of that information the police had raided a shop wherein Surjeet Singh and Rulda Singh were present. Both of them consumed cynadine before they could be apprehended by the police. During investigation of that offence, on 12.2.93, Harpreet Singh was stated to have made an extra judicial confession before Avatar Singh, who was a Lambardar, that he and co-accused Surjeet Singh had abducted those three persons, committed their murder and the dead bodies were thrown in Bhakara Canal near Sirhind Floating Restaurant and that their car was also thrown in that canal. Pursuant to that information the police had recovered the car from the canal on 12.2.93. On 11.3.93 an application was given by Harpreet Singh to the learned Sessions Judge, stating therein that he wanted to make a confession and along with that application he had also submitted a confessional statement which he wanted to make. At this stage of the investigation, the Punjab and Haryana Bar Association filed a writ petition in the High Court praying that the investigation which was made by the police in the said case registered against Harpreet Singh was not fair and that an inquiry by CBI may be ordered. That writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. The Bar Association had thereafter filed an appeal before this Court. Allowing that appeal this Court directed the CBI to investigate the said case and also to submit a report to this Court. The CBI registered the case as R.C. No. 33 of 1993 and after investigation submitted the final report to this Court on 7.3.1996 wherein following actions were recommended:-
“(i) Harpreet Singh @ Lucky s/o Gurmit Singh Saini, r/o Village Bahadurpur, who is presently facing trial in case FIR No. 10/93 of PS Sadar, Ropar in the Designated Court, Nabha has been falsely implicated in the case.
(ii) SI Arvindervir Singh, ASI Darshan Singh, Inspector Balwant Singh and DSP Jaspal Singh are prima facie responsible for the false implication of Harpreet Singh @ Lucky in the aforesaid case and are liable for prosecution for offences under Sections 193, 194, 211 and 218 IPC.
(iii) The State Government of Punjab is to be requested for taking suitable action against Shri Sanjiv Gupta, DIG, Punjab Police for hi
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
