JASMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner seeking the direction to the local police to produce the investigation conducted by it in FIR No. 9 of 2000 under Sections 364, 148 and 149 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. Further prayer made in the said petition was that investigation of the case be handed over to the Crime Branch. In the said petition, it was alleged that the FIR pertains to the heinous crime. It was further alleged that even though the FIR was got registered immediately, but the police was not taking any effective steps to arrest the persons mentioned in the FIR. It was alleged that the police was duty bound to complete the investigation at the earliest. It was alleged that the police was under political pressure not to take any action on the said complaint.

(2.) NOTICE of the said petition was given to the State. Reply has been filed by Rachhpal Singh, DSP of City Ferozepur. In the said reply, it has been stated that the challan has already been put in the Court on 7.3.2000 against Gurbachan Singh, Pippal Singh, Dayal Singh and Bohar Singh (named in the FIR) and one Bakhshish Singh (who was named by Jota Singh injured in his statement recorded during investigation). It has further been alleged that the challan has been put in the Court for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC and that the same was pending before the Judicial Magistrate for 5.5.2000 for framing of charge (which now is pending for 18.8.2000). It was alleged that during investigation, the version given by the complainant- petitioner was found to be false while the version given by Jota Singh, prosecution witness during investigation was found to be true by SI Harnek Singh. It was further alleged that version given by Jota Singh was also supported by medical evidence. It was alleged that investigation was conducted impartially without any political or any other pressure. It was further alleged that a complaint sent to the SSP Ferozepur with a copy to DIG Ferozepur was marked to the deponent being the supervisory officer and he had made an enquiry and had submitted his report on 10.3.2000. It was found that during investigation the offence under Section 364 IPC was deleted. It was also reported that the accused were arrested on 13.2.2000 and the challan was put in the court on 7.3.2000.

(3.) IN the present case, the occurrence had taken place on 25.1.2000. On the same day, the FIR was got registered. The accused was arrested on 13.2.2000 and the challan was put in the Court on 7.3.2000. Taking these facts into consideration, it could not be said that the investigation of the case was delayed or that the police had not taken any action to arrest the culprits in this case. The matter was investigated by the police and the verification was done by DSP concerned. If during investigation the police found that offence under Section 364 had not been committed, the police submitted the challan for the other offences, after deleting the offence under Section 364 IPC. As referred earlier, the challan has already been put in the court and the case is fixed for consideration of the charge. The complainant, if so advised, would be at liberty to show before the learned Magistrate (who is considering the question regarding charge) that an offence under Section 364 IPC was also made out. In any case, the complainant would be at liberty to file a criminal complaint, if so advised, with regard to the offence under Section 364 IPC and the learned Magistrate would be competent to consider the same in accordance with law. So far as the present petition is concerned, no case is made out for interference by this court.