KAMALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of above mentioned two Crl. Misc. Petitions seeking issuance of identical directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. 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 then alleged in the petition that during their meeting from 9th April to 11th April, 2000, Harpreet Kaur had shown her strong desire to respondent No. 2 to perform her formal marriage with the petitioner and the latter ultimately agreed to the marriage and asked the petitioner to leave and bring his passport since both of them would be sent abroad. The petitioner then left the company of Harpreet Kaur on 11.4.2000 on account of assurance of respondent No. 2 to Harpreet Kaur of their formal marriage. The petitioner and his sister were taken in a vehicle by the gunman of respondent No. 2 in order to leave them at the bus stop but ultimately both of them were brought back to village Begowal and left there without stopping the vehicle any where on the way. The petitioner even contacted respondent No. 2 on the telephone and she assured that Harpreet Kaur was feeling all right and he cannot meet her. Ultimately, the petitioner came to know about the sudden death of Harpreet Kaur from the newspaper. He, however, could not attend the cremation but his mother went to attend the cremation and noticed injuries and blackening on the face from one side of Harpreet Kaur. The petitioner could not reconcile to the sudden death and felt that it could not be a suicide other than something having been done to finish her life. The cremation of Harpreet Kaur and immersing of ashes was done on the same day in hush-hush manner. The local police including the S.S.P. did not perform their duty of intervention and even did not perform inquest on the dead body and the dead body was not even subjected to post-mortem examination to rule out any suspicious circumstances concerning her death. The petitioner suspected that completion of last rites of the deceased in such hurried manner was in fact with the intention to cause disappearance of the evidence of commission of offence of her murder.