GURMINDER SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A private law property dispute between owners, builders etc. relating to residential House No 2366, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, involving complex private financial dealings between the parties which include a gift deed and a family settlement entered into between the parties, i.e. the petitioner and respondents No. 3 and 4 claiming ownership rights of the disputed property through late Smt. Gian Kaur, who was an issueless widow of late Kartar Singh the original owner of the property in dispute, has been brought to this Court for resolution by invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition calls in question the impugned orders passed by the Police Complaints Authority, U.T. Chandigarh, (for short the "Authority") constituted by notification dated 23.6.2010 in compliance of the directives issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India, 2006 8 SCC 1 which decision kick started the much needed police reforms in the country with a mandate to constitute in each State a Police Complaints Authority headed by a retired Judge of the High Court to entertain and opine on complaints presented against police personnel to hold them accountable to human rights violations and serious misconduct committed by them in the discharge of their official duties. The Authority has passed the impugned order dated 30.9.2011 castigating the role of Inspector Anokh Singh, the then SHO, Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh of misusing his powers by detaining the real owners of the said disputed property without any just cause or reason compelling them to vacate the house in dispute and to enter into a compromise with those whom the police owe allegiance to beyond the call of duty. The Authority has also found Sub Inspector Rakesh Kumar of the Crime Branch of having acted with bias and malafides in showing undue haste to help wrongdoers for which they deserve suitable punishment after holding departmental inquiry against the wrongdoers. Fresh investigation has been recommended to the Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh, since the earlier inquiry by the Crime Branch was closed on a single day by Sub Inspector Rakesh Kumar and Inspector Amanjot Singh citing pendency of a civil suit making the matter sub judice. It is alleged that Inspector Amanjot Singh's brother happens to be a relative of the petitioner. Certain questioned documents are also said require to be examined by an expert according to the opinion expressed by the Authority. There are allegations of forgery as well which the Authority says cannot and should not be brushed aside "on the basis of a lone statement made by the very person against whom allegation of forgery is made".

(2.) The Authority has now passed an order dated 12.4.2013 requesting the Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh to register an FIR in the matter relating to fraud, forgery and fabrication of documents etc. This opinion of the Authority is impugned in this petition by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Deepak Thapar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the directions/recommendations of the Authority tantamount to returning a finding of forgery against the petitioner and therefore cause prejudice to him. He draws the attention of this Court to the order in which it is recorded as follows: