Back
2000 Supreme(P&H) 636
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Amarbir Singh Gill, J.
Kamaljit Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondents
Criminal Misc. No. 11534-M of 2000.
Decided On : 5 June, 2000
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. H.S. Mattewaal, AG Punjab with Mr. A.G. Masih, AAG Punjab; Mr. H.L. Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate and Mr. R.S. Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bipin Ghai, Advocate.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - INHERENT POWERS - INVESTIGATION - C.B.I. - INQUIRY - CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO DEATH OF HARPREET KAUR - DIRECTIONS TO C.B.I. TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATION - HELD.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Kamaljit Singh, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking directions for an independent investigation into the suspicious death of Harpreet Kaur, the daughter of respondent No. 2, Bibi Jagir Kaur, a prominent political figure and President of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC). The petition alleged that Harpreet Kaur was in a relationship with the petitioner and had conceived a child out of their union. Respondent No. 2 was opposed to their relationship and had threatened to eliminate both of them. Harpreet Kaur died under mysterious circumstances, and the cremation was carried out in a hurried manner, raising suspicions of foul play. The petitioner alleged that the local police, under the influence of respondent No. 2, failed to conduct a proper investigation and did not subject the body to post-mortem examination.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the news items appearing in the press contained facts that were verifiable and could have been substantiated or at least verified. The Court noted that the police had conducted an inquiry into the matter, but such an inquiry was not permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also observed that the cremation of the deceased was done in a hurried manner and the remains of the pyre were removed and immersed on the same day, leaving no evidence available for examination. The Court further noted that the petitioner and his family members were facing threats to their lives and limb, and that an independent investigation was necessary to dispel the doubts surrounding the death of Harpreet Kaur.
Issues: 1. Whether the police inquiry into the death of Harpreet Kaur was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 2. Whether the hurried cremation of the deceased and the removal of the remains of the pyre raised suspicions of foul play? 3. Whether the petitioner and his family members were facing threats to their lives and limb? 4. Whether an independent investigation was necessary to dispel the doubts surrounding the death of Harpreet Kaur?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the police inquiry into the death of Harpreet Kaur was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it was not preceded by the recording of any information in the police records or by forwarding information to the nearest Executive Magistrate. 2. The Court observed that the hurried cremation of the deceased and the removal of the remains of the pyre raised suspicions of foul play, as there was no evidence available for examination. 3. The Court noted that the petitioner and his family members were facing threats to their lives and limb, and that an independent investigation was necessary to dispel the doubts surrounding the death of Harpreet Kaur. 4. The Court held that an independent investigation was necessary to dispel the doubts surrounding the death of Harpreet Kaur, and directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct the investigation.
Final Decision: The Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct an investigation into the circumstances leading to the death of Harpreet Kaur. The Court further directed that all material collected so far by the police inquiry team be handed over to the CBI, and that the petitioner and his family members be provided with necessary police protection.
Amarbir Singh Gill, J. - This order shall dispose of above mentioned two Crl. Misc. Petitions seeking issuance of identical directions under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code Since Kamaljit Singh, petitioner, is personally aggrieved on account of acts and omissions of the respondents and is seeking relief by invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code the facts disclosed in his petition i.e. Crl. Misc. No. 11534-M of 2000 need to be referred primarily in this order.
2. The petitioner has claimed that he belongs to Begowal village of Bibi Jagir Kaur, respondent No. 2. His land adjoins the land of respondent No. 2 in the village. Deceased-Harpreet Kaur was the elder daughter of respondent No. 2 who used to study in the village school in 9th class during 1995-96 and the petitioner had been visiting the school and she was class fellow of the younger brother of the petitioner. Both petitioner and Harpreet Kaur developed friendship which ultimately culminated into love affair. Harpreet Kaur, later-on, shifted to Chandigarh and they had been initially chatting on the telephone and thereafter he started meeting her at Chandigarh in Sector 39, Chandigarh in the official residence of respondent No. 2 who by that time had been elected as an M.L.A. and inducted into the State Cabinet as a Minister. They also used to meet at Oasis a Motel in Chandigarh and often they stayed together in the official house of respondent No. 2. On one of their stay in Oasis, they also formally got engaged and ceremony was duly photographed and Harpreet Kaur wore bridal clothes as well. This function was kept secret because respondent No. 2 did not approve their relationship. They also continued to exchange love letters/greeting cards. However, respondent No. 2 always discarded their association. At the instance of Harpreet Kaur, they also decided to marry secretly and then seek blessings of her family, as otherwise there would not be any arranged marriage between them.
3. It is further stated in the petition that in the month of December, 1999, Harpreet Kaur alongwith her family members had gone to America from where she spoke to him on telephone and informed that she had conceived by that time. On her return in the month of February, 2000, both of them stayed in the official house of respondent No. 2 at Chandigarh and in the absence of respondent No. 2 from the house, he alongwith Harpreet Kaur consulted a doctor in Sector 39, Chandigarh who confirmed the pregnancy of Harpreet Kaur. Later on the advice of the doctor, Harpreet Kaur also went through ultrasound test and vide which it was confirmed the pregnancy of about 17 weeks and that was a male child. When respondent No. 2 came to know about the presence of the petitioner in her house at Chandigarh, she issued directions that he be sent out of the house but Harpreet Kaur insisted otherwise. She allowed him to leave the house only when respondent No. 2 gave her willingness to their marriage. Respondent No. 2 also advised them to reduce the frequency of their meetings with each other. Harpreet Kaur asked the petitioner on telephone to get ready for formal marriage also in the presence of her family members but then the telephone was abruptly got cut. Thereafter, Harpreet Kaur contacted him only on 9.4.2000 when she informed him that she was speaking from village Bidipur as she had run away from the house of Dalvinder Kaur Desi, respondent No. 4, where she was kept and confined by respondent No. 2. The petitioner alongwith his sister contacted Harpreet Kaur and from there they went to Rai near Sonepat and spent the night there. When he contacted his parents, he came to know that the local police was harassing them at the behest of respondent No. 2. Harpreet Kaur then contacted respondent No. 2 on telephone and asked her not to harass the family of the petitioner and on the asking and assurance of respondent No. 2 on the telephone that she was agreeable to their m
