SURINDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURINDERJIT Singh Mand and P.S. Parmar have filed the instant revision petition assailing order dated 23.12.2006 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala thereby ordering framing of charge under Section 211/220 (inadvertently mentioned as 230 in the order) and 330 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") against the petitioners and their co- accused.

(2.) ACCORDING to prosecution version, police officials visited the house of complainant-respondent No. 2 Usha Rani on 23.6.1999 and asked her to produce her elder son Neeraj Kumar in CIA Staff, Kapurthala. Accordingly, Piare Lal, husband of respondent No. 2, produced Neeraj Kumar before petitioner No. 1 who was then Deputy Superintendent of Police, CIA Staff, Kapurthala, on 24.8.1999. Petitioner No. 1 took Neeraj into custody and handed him over to petitioner No. 2 who was then the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective), Kapurthala. Neeraj Kumar was lodged in police lock up at Police Station City Kapurthala. On 25.6.1999, both the petitioners went to the said police station and gave beating to Neeraj Kumar, who resultantly had problem in his backbone. Swelling also appeared on his feet. On 27.8.1999 respondent No. 2 and her husband appeared before Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala and thereupon they were allowed to meet their son. Then telegrams were sent to various authorities. Thereafter, on coming to know thereof, Neeraj Kumar was shown to have been arrested in a false criminal case bearing FIR No. 30 dated 3.3.1989 of Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala, Neeraj Kumar was released on bail on 3.6.1999. Criminal complaint was lodged against the petitioners and others. On direction of this Court, inquiry was also conducted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, who in his report dated 25.9.2000 held that prima facie all the accused including petitioners were involved in the offence of illegal confinement of Neeraj Kumar and causing him injuries and falsely implicating him in the aforesaid case.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that three inquiries were conducted by three different officers of Indian Police Services (prior to registration of FIR No. 46 dated 22.10.2002 of Police Station City, Kapurthala in which the charges have been framed against the petitioners and other co- accused by the impugned order) and the petitioners were found innocent in all the said inquiries. However, this argument does not help the petitioners at this stage because an inquiry was also conducted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and prima facie involvement of the present petitioners was also found in the commission of aforesaid offences.