KULDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KULDIP Singh, son of Pritam Singh, petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the State of Punjab, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, Gurdip Singh, S.P.(D), Patiala and Darshan Singh Mann, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, seeking the directions of this Court against the respondents No. 1 to 3 to take final action in the enquiry pending against respondent No. 4 on the complaint filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that he is a victim of the repression and high-handedness on the part of respondent No. 4 Darshan Singh Mann, Dy. S.P., who at the time of filing this petition was posted at Jalandhar. According to the petitioner he is having a business of commission agent in New Grain Market, Sirhind Road, Patiala. He had a joint business with one Inder Singh son of Harnam Singh, who was a rich farmer. His partner was killed by his wife and her paramour on 14.10.1993 by administering slow poison. On 22.4.1996, the wife, the paramour and another accomplice were arrested by the CIA Staff, Patiala. In the evening of 22.4.1994, respondent No. 4 who was then Inspector and incharge of CIA, Staff Patiala and who was conducting the investigation of that case came to the shop of petitioner and he took search of the shop and in that search, he seized Rs. 40,000/- out of the cash box of the petitioner. So much so, Darshan Singh Mann, respondent No. 4 took away the petitioner and cash to the CIA, Staff. Respondent No. 4 started threatening the petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner had killed his partner Inder Singh and in case the petitioner wanted to save himself he should pay a bribe of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The petitioner told respondent No. 4 that he was innocent and he had no connection with the crime, but respondent No. 4 gave beating to the petitioner. In order to save his skin ultimately, the petitioner promised to respondent No. 4 that he would supply him one lac of bricks for his house in village Sullar. The petitioner became helpless and ultimately he was forced to supply the bricks from M/s Goyal Brick Industry, Patiala and paid the price of the bricks to the owner of the brick-kiln. The petitioner also made representations to the Higher Authorities regarding the said high-handedness of respondent No. 4 who had extorted Rs. 40,000/- from the petitioner and also compelled the petitioner to part with one lac brick for his benefit by way of pecuniary advantage. Ultimately, the petitioner became helpless and when he moved the department against respondent No. 4, the department made preliminary enquiries against respondent No. 4.

(3.) DARSHAN Singh, respondent No. 4 filed a separate written statement and also an additional affidavit in which he totally denied the allegations of the petitioner by stating that he is the victim of departmental rivalry at the hands of Shri Chander Shekhar who was then DIG, Patiala Range. The stand taken up by the respondent No. 4 is that he suffered the personal vendetta of Shri Chander Shekhar, DIG, and other high ups as a result of which he was demoted to the rank of Sub Inspector and that action of the department has also been challenged by him in the Hon'ble High Court which has even stayed the operation of the order demoting respondent No. 4 from the post of DSP to the post of Sub Inspector.