SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(SC) 773

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.
Bakhshish Singh Brar, Petitioner
Versus
 Smt. Gurmej Kaur and another, Respondents.
Spl. Leave Petn. (Cri.) No. 419 of 1987,
D/- 12-10-1987.

Advocates:
P.N.PURI, R.K.GARG, R.P.SINGH PAL, R.S.SODHI, R.S.Suri, SUMAN KAPUR

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 196 and 197 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 141/302/325/323/149/120-B - Petitioner, Deputy Superintendent of Police was charged for the offences under Application for stay of proceedings as sanction under section 197 Criminal Procedure Code was not obtained - Death of one of the alleged offenders in the alleged search and raid conducted by the petitioner in discharge of Iris official duties-Grievous injuries had been inflicted on the complainant - Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Petition filed under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code filed by the petitioner for stay of proceedings ? (Yes)

       Held, the question is while investigating and performing his duties as a police officer was it necessary for the petitioner to conduct himself in such a manner, which would result in such consequences. It is necessary to protect the public servants in the discharge of their duties. They must be made immune from being harassed in criminal proceedings and prosecution, that is the rationale behind section 196 and section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But it is equally important to emphasize that rights of the citizens should be protected and no excesses should be permitted. "Encounter death" has become too common. In the facts and circumstance of each case protection of public officers and public servants functioning in discharge of official duties and protection of private citizens have to be balanced by finding out as to what extent and how far is a public servant working In discharge of his duties or purported discharge of his duties, and whether the public servant has exceeded his limit. It is true that section 196 states that no cognizance can be taken and even after cognizance having been taken if facts come to light that the acts complaint of were done in the discharge of the official duties then the trial may have to be stayed unless sanction is obtained. But at the same time it has to be emphasized that criminal trials should not be stayed in all cases at the preliminary stage because that will cause great damage to the evidence. (Para 6)

Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:- This is a petition for leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dt. 11th Dec. 1986. By the order the High Court has dismissed the application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that further proceedings be stayed in Sessions Case No. 1 of 25th Mar. 1985 under Ss. 148/302/325/323/ 149/120-B of I.P.C. The High Court dismissed this petition because it found no merit in the same.

2. The petitioner herein along with 14 more, persons were charged by an order dt. 30th May, 1986 under Ss. 148/302/149/325/ 149 and under Ss. 323/149 of the I.P.C. for allegedly causing death of one Ajit Singh and for causing hurt to Smt. Gurmej Kaur the complainant. The case was committed to the Court of Session by the Judicial Magistrate lst Class, Kapurthala vide order dt. 20-2-1985. As per the case set up by the complainant Smt. Gurmej Kaur, her son Ajit Singh since deceased was involved in a murder case pertaining to the murder of head constable Bagga Singh of Police Station Dhalwan. That case was registered in police station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar and Ajit Singh was tried along with other persons and was sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge but he was acquitted by the High Court. The complainant further states that Ajit Singh was also involved by the police in a case of dacoity of police station Kotwali Kapurthala and police station Dhilwan during investigation of the murder case in question. Ajit Singh was also convicted in those cases but acquitted by the High Court. It is the case of the complainant that Ajit Singh was allegedly involved in some other murder and dacoity case by the police which as tried in Himachal Pradesh and Ajit Singh as acquitted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Mohinder Singh and Des Raj also co-accused in this case allegedly investigated cases of Kapurthala and Ajit Singh was tortured by Des Raj and the leg of Ajit Singh was broken. Ajit Singh then filed complaint against Des Raj (also accused in this case) and he was summoned by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kapurthala and thus the relation between Ajit Singh and Kapurthala Police Station had become very strained. Ajit Singh had then settled in U.P., according to the allegations in the complaint, out of fear of the police. It is stated that on or about 7th April, 1983 at about 3 p.m. all the accused including present petitioner went to village Bhandal Bet. They went to the house of the complainant where she was present along with her sons Ajit Singh and Manjit Singh and other members of the family. Manjit Singh and Ajit Singh, it was alleged, were surrounded by the police officials and Manjit Singh and Ajit Singh protested against this. Then Bakhshish Singh accused, petitioner, directed his companions to arrest Ajit Singh and Manjit Singh and tie them with ropes and put them in the truck for the purpose of throwing them in the river Beas. It was further alleged that Manjit Singh and Ajit Singh ran to save themselves but they were attacked by the police officials. The complainant also received injuries in the course of this occurrence when she was given dang blows. Ajit Singh and Manjit Singh were given blows by the police officials on the asking of the appellant herein Bakhshish Singh Brar, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police. A hue and cry was raised. Other persons came, Ajit Singh and Manjit Singh became unconscious and then they were taken away in the truck for the purpose of throwing them in the river, according to the complaint. The case of the complainant further was that Ajit Singh and Manjit Singh were then got admitted by the police in Civil Hospital, Kapurthala as indoor patients and Ajit Singh died as a result of injuries on 8th Mar. 1983. It was further alleged that the accused who are the police officials fabricated false evidence in order to make out a defence and registered two false cases one under S.








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top