LAKHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Lakha Singh lodged a complaint before the Police. Station Civil Lines, Amritsar on 18.7.1996 on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 117 of 1996 has been registered by the said Police Station under Sections 302, 158 and 149 I.P.C. As per the allegations in the said complaint, on 17.7.1996 at about 11 p.m., when the petitioner, along-with his family members, was chatting on the roof of his house, his brother Kashmir Singh and one Paramjit Singh were caused injuries with Kirpan as a result of which the above said Kashmir Singh and Paramjit Singh died. The petitioner has also given names of the assailants as Dilbag Singh, Bhola Singh, Devinder Singh, Makhan Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Hardip Singh.

(2.) THE petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the transfer of the investigation of the abovesaid F.I.R. to some other independent agency such as Central Bureau of Investigation or the State Vigilance Bureau alleging that the third respondent-Gurbachan Singh who is the Station House Officer of Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar has twisted the facts of the case in such a way as if the petitioner and his wife had not witnessed the occurrence and also changing the part attributed to the accused, in order to help the accused. The petitioner also claims that he was not furnished with a copy of the F.I.R., that the Special Report was intentionally sent after a delay to the concerned Magistrate on 19.7.1996, that the petitioner approached the second respondent-Narinder Pal Singh (Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar) and the third respondent and informed them that the version given in the F.I.R. is not the actual version as reported by the petitioner, but neither respondents 2 and 3 nor the higher authorities to whom the telegrams were given, listened to his grievance. The petitioner has further alleged that the second respondent is a relation of Devinder Singh accused and for the very same reason, the third respondent being a subordinate of the second respondent, is not investigating the case properly. According to the petitioner, the accused Bhola Singh, Devinder Singh and Hardip Singh have not been arrested, but are moving freely and that he (petitioner) apprehends danger at the hands of the accused as well as respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) THE second respondent, on the other hand, denies the alleged relationship with accused-Devinder Singh, and that he is helping the accused.