ANMEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition had been filed seeking for protection of life and liberty for the petitioner, who complained that his wife was murdered. It was an instance of honour killing for his marriage outside the caste and to the consternation of the local khap and the parents of his wife. The situation was that the husband anticipated that his wife will be segregated from his company and done away with. As it turned out, the woman was murdered and body was found abandoned.

(2.) Considering the nature of case and the poignancy of the situation, I went beyond merely ordering protection and sensing that it was a repeated theme in the State of Haryana, of parents or local khaps actively advocating against sgotra marriages as well as marriages outside the boundaries of respective castes, I gave some directions, constituted a special investigation team and called upon the police to report the progress and the steps taken in the light of directions given to prevent the recurrence of the festering problem of the honour killings. While I had disposed of the case on 23.02.2015, I had directed the matter to be called on 07.04.2015 to submit a report outlining the actions actually taken by the police for implementation of the guidelines given.

(3.) The Superintendent of Police, Sirsa had filed a report in Court and my brother Judge before whom the case was brought on 07.04.2015 had found that the affidavit did not address all the directions given to the police and directed a specific affidavit to be given with regard to implementation of all the directions. The police had pointed out to circulation of Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) for investigation of cases relating to honour killing as alleged to have been issued by the Director General of Police, Haryana. This, according to the State would take care of every situation which this Court had contemplated and therefore, there was no need to file the affidavit. At the next date on 05.05.2016, the Sub Inspector Mr. Vikas brought to the attention of Court that the challan had been presented against five persons and requested the fact to be taken note of and also take into consideration the SOP issued by the Director General of Police. At the next hearing before yet another brother Judge, the State informed that the trial had already commenced and no further directions would be necessary. The case was directed to be placed before me by the orders of the Acting Chief Justice and at that stage, the petitioner at whose instance certain directions had been given had filed serious objections to the Memorandum of Procedure circulated and how deliberately the police had been shielding certain persons against whom the petitioner had given tangible proof of involvement in the murder of his wife but they had not been included in the charge sheet and they had been left out of reckoning from being arraigned as accused.