Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Anil R. Dave, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
ZORAWAR SINGH & ANR. – APPELLANTS
Versus
GURBAX SINGH BAINS & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2530 OF 2014 @ (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.2038 OF 2013)
Decided On: 04-12-2014
Facts of the case:
On the intervening night of 27th and 28th of September 2010 in a road accident between a Ford Endeavour car driven by Zorawar Singh i.e. the present Appellant No.1 and a truck two students namely Gagandeep Singh Bains (son of the present respondent no.1) and Gaurav Verma died and the other two occupants of the car namely Appellant No.1 and one Jaskaran Singh got badly injured and were moved to the hospital. On these allegations FIR No.219 was registered under section 304A, 279, 337, 427 IPC against the driver of the truck.
Respondent No.1 however submitted representation to the Director General of Police, Punjab alleging that his son had not died in that accident but was murdered in a pre-planned manner. Similar representation in the form of an application was sent by Respondent No.1 to the High Court. The matter was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No.6656 of 2011 and a single Judge issued notice to the State of Punjab.
In the meantime the matter was entrusted by Government to DIG (Crime) to conduct independent investigation and submit his report.
The DIG (Crime) recommended that the offence u/s 302 IPC be added and the matter be investigated from some independent and impartial Agency.
Instead, one after another Special Investigation Team was constituted and final report was submitted reporting the incident to be a road accident.
The High Court observed that it was mandatory duty of the State to implement the report submitted by DIG (Crime) and it therefore directed the State to act in terms of said report within three months. The High Court was also pleased to direct that Respondent no.1 be paid an amount of Rs.50,000/-by way of compensation, initially by the State which could then be recovered from the erring officers after fixing the responsibility. The petition was disposed of.
Finding of the Court:
Once the matter was in seisin of the High Court, nothing could and ought to have been undertaken without its express leave.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Challan or final report under Section 173 CrPC must not be filed without compliance to court directions: Where a superior court has explicitly directed against presenting a report under Section 173 CrPC based on a particular investigation, filing such a challan is illegal and improper, rendering it liable to be withdrawn from the record. (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000546910015] (!)
Once a matter is in seisin of a High Court, no report under Section 173 CrPC can be filed without its express permission: Any action, including submission of a final report or challan under Section 173, undertaken without the High Court's leave, especially in defiance of its orders prohibiting such filing, is invalid. [1000546910014][1000546910015] (!)
Court's power post-filing of report under Section 173 CrPC is limited to directing further investigation under Section 173(8): After a final report under Section 173 CrPC is submitted, the court cannot mandate implementation of prior preliminary reports or override the final report except by ordering further investigation as per Section 173(8) CrPC. (!) [1000546910015]
Report under Section 173 CrPC must reflect thorough, fair, and transparent investigation: The investigating agency must ensure the final report is based on complete evidence, witness statements, and records; any deviation, such as ignoring superior recommendations or proceeding on disbanded teams' findings, undermines its validity. [1000546910012][1000546910015] (!)
Magistrate retains discretion for further investigation after receipt of report under Section 173 CrPC: Upon submission of the report, the Magistrate may assess if additional investigation is required and direct it accordingly, particularly where new directions mandate registration of specific offences. (!) [1000546910015]
Reports leading to Section 173 CrPC filing must not seek to nullify prior court-monitored directions: Constituting investigation teams or proceeding in a manner that contradicts explicit court orders (e.g., acting on disbanded SIT reports) before filing under Section 173 renders the process and resultant challan improper. [1000546910014][1000546910015] (!)
JUDGMENT
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. This petition for special leave to appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-6656 of 2011. Leave granted.
2. On 28.09.2010, a complaint was given by one Karnail Singh alleging that on the intervening night of 27th and 28th of September 2010 in a road accident between a Ford Endeavour Car having registration No. PCP 17 driven by Zorawar Singh i.e. the present Appellant No.1 and a truck bearing Registration No. HR 58-3264 at Liberty Chowk, Rajpura, District Patiala, two students namely Gagandeep Singh Bains (son of the present respondent no.1) and Gaurav Verma died and the other two occupants of the car namely Appellant No.1 and one Jaskaran Singh got badly injured and were moved to the hospital. On these allegations FIR No.219 was registered under section 304A, 279, 337, 427 IPC at Police Station, Rajpura against the driver of the truck.
3. Respondent No.1 however submitted representation to the Director General of Police, Punjab alleging that his son had not died in that accident but was murdered in a pre-planned manner. Similar such representation in the form of an application dated 21.02.2011 was sent by Respondent No.1 to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was registered as Diary No.350 dated 23.02.2011 and was placed before a learned Single Judge who directed that the application be placed on the judicial side of the High Court. Accordingly a note was prepared by the office of the High Court on 26.02.2011 requesting the learned Chief Justice whether the petition could be registered under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for transferring the case to CBI for investigation into the matter. The learned Chief Justice having given his approval, the matter was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No.6656 of 2011 and was placed before a learned single Judge who by her order dated 03.03.2011 issued notice to the State of Punjab.
4. In the meantime the Principal Secretary, Home, Punjab vide his letter dated 27.02.2011 entrusted the matter to Shri Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh IPS, DIG (Crime) to conduct independent investigation and submit his report. The matter before the High Court stood adjourned from time to time and on 18.11.2011 the High Court was told that the enquiry was nearing completion. On the next date i.e., on 21.12.2011 the High Court was informed that the DIG (Crime) had concluded his enquiry and had recommended addition of offence under Section 302 IPC. The order passed by the High Court on 21.12.2011 was to the following effect:
“State Counsel on instructions says that inquiry in this case has been concluded and the DIG (Crime) has recommended addition of offence under Section 302 IPC. Let the report in this regard be placed on record. Adjourned to 16.01.2012.”
5. On 27.12.2011 said DIG (Crime) submitted his enquiry report in which he concluded as under:
“As per the enquiry conducted by me that keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the case FIR No.219 dated 28.09.2010 registered under section 279, 304-A, 427 IPC police station city Rajpura has not been found on the basis of true and material facts and the investigation also seems to be done by concealing the true and real facts especially as per the statement given by the eye witness Jatinder Singh (truck conductor) that fight took place at the spot between the two parties came in two different cars and the case is not found of road accident. So custodial interrogation of the concerned persons is necessary as the matter is of serious nature. So after registering the case under section 302 IPC, it is recommended to investigate the matter from some independent and impartial Agency for bringing the truth into light.”
Sd/-
6. Though the report had stated that a case be registered under Section 302 IPC and that the investigation be thereafter handed over to some independent and impartial agency, a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’ for
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
