JATT RAM Vs. PUNJAB STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of seven Civil Writ Petition Nos. 18237, 19855 of 2003, 3665, 1371 of 2004, 4834 of 2005, 814 and 28 of 2004 along with Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44216-M of 2003 which was ordered to be heard along with Civil Writ Petition No. 18237 of 2003 filed by the same petitioner. The common thread which runs through all the writ petitions is a challenge to the various orders passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") being arbitrary, without jurisdiction, illegal and interference in the criminal investigation as well as in the administration of criminal justice and being in violation of provisions of law. All the aforesaid orders have been passed by the same member (Sh. B.C. Rajput) of the State Commission. It might be relevant to notice facts in each case : Criminal Misc. No. 4216-M of 2003 and Civil Writ Petition No. 18237 of 2003 :

(2.) ON the statement of petitioner Jatt Ram, an FIR No. 110 dated July 13, 2003 was registered at Police Station Guruharsahai against Makhan Ram and others, including one Jaswinder Singh son of Surain Singh under Sections 307/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act. The aforesaid accused persons could not be arrested at the spot. Later on, the aforesaid accused also claimed that they had been caused injuries by the petitioner party. A DDR No. 21 dated July 13, 2003 was registered at their instance. The matter was enquired into by the police and the version of the aforesaid accused Makhan Ram and others was rejected by the police. On a statement made by the aforesaid accused, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, deputed Deputy Superintendent of Police (D), Ferozepur to enquire into the matter. A report dated September 11, 2003 was submitted by the aforesaid Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was reported that the version of aforesaid Makhan Ram and others was false. The aforesaid accused persons filed an application seeking anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Vide two separate orders dated August 22, 2003 and August 28, 2003, the prayer made by the aforesaid accused persons was rejected. The aforesaid accused persons approached this Court through Criminal Misc. No. 40013-M of 2003, seeking anticipatory bail. The said bail application was got dismissed as withdrawn by them on September 3, 2003. A copy of the order dated September 3, 2003 (Annexure P-5) shows that the said petition was got dismissed as withdrawn by the aforesaid accused persons after arguing the case at length. On the same date i.e. September 3, 3003 itself, the father of Jaswinder Singh, namely Surain Singh filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It was alleged in the aforesaid complaint that on July 12, 2003, Jatt Ram and others had started illegal construction in the land of Makhan Ram and on stopping them, they caused injuries to the complainant party (Surain Singh's party). It was further claimed that although an FIR No. 110 dated July 13, 2003 had been registered on the asking of Jatt Ram and others, the police had merely recorded a DDR No. 21 at the instance of complainant party and no action had been taken because the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had conducted the investigation, favoured the opposite party.

(3.) PETITIONER , Jatt Ram filed Criminal Misc. No. 44216-M of 2003 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court. The aforesaid order Annexure P-6 was impugned. A reply was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous petition. In the aforesaid reply also, the Deputy Superintendent of Police maintained that on investigation, the contents of FIR No. 110 dated July 13, 2003 had been found to be correct whereas the version given by Makhan Ram and others had been found to be false and their injuries had been found to be self-inflicted.