AMARJEET SINGH SANDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure to direct respondents 1 to 5 to register a case in regard to the death of sister of the petitioner on 18.5.1997.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his sister Sharanjit Kaur was married to one Baljinder Singh on 21.1.1996 and at the time of marriage gold ornaments and other gifts have been given to the family members of the husband of the petitioner's sister. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, his sister was tortured and was treated cruelly demanding more money. It is further averred that on 11.5.1997, his sister came to Sirsa and told her family members that she was being tortured and she has been sent to her paternal home to bring a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. He further stated that on 13.5.1997 his brother-in-law- Baljinder Singh came to Sirsa and repeated the same demand. The petitioner further alleged that he gave a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to his brother-in-law promising him to pay the rest of the amount shortly. Thereafter, on 18.5.1997, petitioner received a telephonic message that Sharanjit Kaur was serious. Therefore, he went to Damdama Sahib and came to know that his sister had died. He further averred that he approached the Police but no action has been taken on his complaint and no case has also been registered. He tried to contact the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, on 2.5.1997 but he was not available.

(3.) AFTER going through the reply, I am satisfied that no proper investigation has been done. When it is reported that the sister of the petitioner died within one year of the marriage under suspicious circumstances and when it is in the statement of the petitioner that there was demand for money and that she was ill-treated, a presumption under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act could be drawn that the death was a dowry death. It does not appear from the reply filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that he recorded the statement of any of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No names of the persons who have been examined have been mentioned in the reply. A complete reading of the reply shows the callous manner in which the alleged enquiry was conducted. It is only a make believe story. I, therefore, direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda to register a case on the basis of Annexure P-2 which the Deputy Superintendent of Police admitted to have been received in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda and entrust the investigation of the case to a Senior Police Officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police that too other than Darshan Singh Sandhu who filed the reply in this case.