JASPAL KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner lodged FIR No. 33 dated 8.5.1997, under Sections 452, 427, 506, 148, 149 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Raikot, Police District Jagraon, Revenue District Ludhiana. A copy of the FIR has been annexed as Annexure P1. The Police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate against the accused persons. Petitioner Jaspal Kaur has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has prayed for issuance of a direction to the Punjab Police (Crime Branch) at Chandigarh to investigate the aforesaid case afresh on the ground that Shri Rachpal Singh Bajwa, Superintendent of Police (H.Q.) Jagraon had threatened the petitioner and her relatives to compromise the matter with the accused. The Superintendent of Police aforesaid had called the petitioner and her brother Rajbir Singh to his Office on 3.7.1997 at Jagraon and held out threats to her and her relatives. They were again summoned on 5.7.1997 and similar threats had been held out in case the petitioner did not enter into a compromise with the accused named in the FIR. It has also been averred in the petition that the relatives of the accused persons are posted on higher posts in the State of Punjab and have family relations with Sh. Rachpal Singh Bajwa, SP. The SHO of Police Station Raikot, it was alleged, had also advised the petitioner and her brother Rajbir to compromise the matter with the accused persons. It was further alleged that the accused persons were tampering with the evidence of the prosecution at the instance of the Police of Raikot. The petitioner has cited the decision of this Court rendered in Criminal Writ Petition No. 458 of 1996, Manjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) RCR 255 wherein directions had been issued to the Director General of Police (Crime) to entrust the investigation of the FIR not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. The petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. No. 15207/M of 1997 in this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.7.1997 with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action.

(2.) NOTICES were issued to the respondents who put in appearance. Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, while Mr. P.S. Hundal, Advocate appeared for respondents No. 3 to 11.

(3.) MR . D.S. Rajput, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case the Police did not investigate the case fairly and properly in view of the interference from respondent No. 2, SP(H.Q.) Jagraon who held out threats to the petitioner for compromising the case. The allegations made against the respondents-Police Officers are in respect of putting pressure on the petitioner to compromise the case with the accused against whom the report was lodged. In a separate Criminal Misc. case No. 23957 of 1997 moved in this case the petitioner disclosed about the Police submitting a charge sheet against the accused after issuance of notice of motion in the main case and a prayer was made for staying the proceedings in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate. In that petition it was contended that the Police had, with mala fide intentions, not submitted challan against accused Balbir Singh, Swaran Singh, Manjit Singh, Nirmal Singh and Harbans Singh whose names had been specifically mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the facts averred in the petition the mala fides on the part of the police officers were prima facie shown and as such, it was a fit case in which fresh investigation should be ordered. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the case of Kashmiri Devi v. Delhi Administration and another, AIR 1988 SC 1323. So far as the case of Kashmiri Devi (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court noticed that the investigation in the case registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code against Police Officials for custodial death of a person who had been arrested and taken to the Police Station, was not properly conducted and the offence was diluted from Section 302 of Indian Penal Code to Section 304 of Indian Penal Code within hours of the registration of the case and even without waiting for the post mortem report. The case was further converted into Section 323/34 of Indian Penal Code during the pendency of the writ petition and Special Leave Petition for transfer of investigation to the C.B.I. and charge sheet was submitted on that basis. It was held that prima facie the Police acted in a partisan manner to shield the real culprits. The trial Court was accordingly directed to direct C.B.I. for proper investigation of the case by exercising powers under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts of the case of Kashmiri Devi (supra) are entirely different from the facts of the instant case. In this case the grievance of the petitioner is initially about the alleged pressure being put on the petitioner to compromise the case with the accused. This is said to be done at the behest of respondent No. 2. It, however, appears from perusal of the averments made in the petition filed in Crl. Misc. Case No. 23957 of 1997 seeking stay of the proceedings before the Illaqa Magistrate, that the police submitted a challan though it was not filed against all the accused named in the FIR. There is no averment made in the petition about the Police diluting the offences while submitting the charge sheet.