Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Nishan Singh & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 60118 of 2022
Decided On : 22-12-2022
Fair and Impartial Investigation - Direction for Timely Decision by Director General of Police - Liberty to File Fresh Petition - No Adjudication on Merits
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought fair and impartial investigation and requested the court to issue appropriate directions. The court served notices to the official respondents and proposed an order without requiring responses from the official or private respondents. The court directed the Director General of Police to decide on the representation within two months and reserved liberty for the petitioner to file a fresh petition or pursue other legal remedies. The court clarified that there was no adjudication on merits and that the order would not hinder any interrogation of the petitioner in a cognizable case.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition to the extent mentioned above and disposed of all pending applications.
Issues: Fair and impartial investigation, issuance of appropriate directions, timely decision by Director General of Police, liberty to file fresh petition, no adjudication on merits
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fair and impartial investigation and directed the Director General of Police to make a reasoned decision within a specified timeframe. The court also upheld the petitioner's liberty to pursue further legal remedies and clarified that the order did not involve adjudication on merits.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed to the extent mentioned, and all pending applications were disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. - Seeking fair and impartial investigation, the petitioners, claiming to be an aggrieved persons, have come up before this court, seeking the issuance of appropriate directions.
2. Notices are served upon the official respondents through the State's counsel. Given the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of notices to the private respondents is required.
3. Let the representation dated 14.12.2022, Annexure P-4 be decided by the Director General of Police, within two months, either himself or by authorizing and delegating it to any officer holding IPS cadre. It is clarified that such order must be a reasoned order, and the same be communicated to the representationists without delay.
4. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file fresh petition or to take other legal remedies in accordance with the law.
5. It is clarified that there is no adjudication on merits. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way if the interrogation of the petitioner is required in any cognizable case.
6. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Petitioner and State can download this order and other relevant particulars from the official web page of this court and attest it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.
Petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
The court emphasized the importance of fair and impartial investigation and upheld the petitioner's right to seek appropriate directions and pursue legal remedies without adjudication on merits.
The court emphasized the importance of a reasoned decision by the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police and clarified the scope of the order, reserving liberty for the petitioner to pursue other ....
The right to seek fair and impartial investigation, the petitioner's entitlement to make a representation to the concerned authorities, and the reservation of liberty to pursue other legal remedies.
The court emphasized the importance of a reasoned decision on the representation and clarified the limited scope of the order.
The court emphasized the importance of a reasoned decision by the concerned Superintendent of Police on the representation and clarified that there was no adjudication on merits.
Public authorities must respond timely to representations made to them, reinforcing procedural fairness and the right of individuals to receive decisions.
The court has the authority to direct law enforcement agencies to address matters related to the protection of lives and liberty.
The High Court may issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct police authorities to process a pending representation and conclude necessary enquiries within a specified ....
Statutory authorities must address representations and cannot delay responses indefinitely, reinforcing the need for timely action.
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
