Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahab Singh And Another vs Smt. Neeta on 14 October, 2011
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-18011 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-18011 of 2008
Date of Decision : 14th October, 2011
Sahab Singh and another
.... Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Neeta
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the respondent
****
L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Saheb Singh, retired Sub-Inspector and Jugal Kishore, Awarded Assistant Sub-Inspector (accused Nos.1 and 2) have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing criminal complaint Annexure P-37 instituted by respondent-complaint Smt. Neeta against petitioners and Prithvi Singh, Constable, and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said criminal complaint.
At the relevant time, all the three accused i.e. both petitioners and Prithvi Singh were posted as SHO, Head Constable and Constable respectively in Police Station, Rai District Sonepat. Case of the complainant is that on 18.12.1999, three buffalos of one Rama Singh were stolen from his house in village Badoli. Rajpal Kashyap, husband of the complainant, was called to Police Station, Rai on 24.12.1999 in connection Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-18011 of 2008 -2- with the said theft, but on that day, he was set free with direction to come back on 25.12.1999. Accordingly, Rajpal Kashyap again went to the Police Station, Rai on 25.12.1999 in the morning. He was in good health at that time. He was detained in the Police Station till 28.12.1999. On 28.12.1999 at about 8.00pm, police brought Rajpal Kashyap to his house in village Badoli. He was profusely bleeding from chin and mouth. He could not walk of his own. He told that all the three accused tortured and beat him badly and they were responsible for his aforesaid condition. On account of torture and beatings, during the same night, Rajpal Kashyap succumbed to his injuries, which had been caused by the accused. The Police did not record FIR regarding the murder of complainant's husband. She knocked at the door of this Court. Ultimately, on direction of this Court, FIR was registered. Additional Director General, Crime Branch, Haryana was directed to investigate the case, but the case was investigated by Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Madhuban. After investigation, cancellation report was submitted. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept the cancelation report and directed further investigation. The complainant again approached this Court for necessary directions, but the petition was dismissed by this Court and even Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court was dismissed vide order dated 24.08.2007, but liberty was granted to the complainant to take appropriate proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Accordingly, the complainant filed complaint Annexure P-37 with prayer that direction to be issued under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. for registration of FIR and investigation.
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat took cognizance of the complaint and passed order dated 04.07.2008 Annexure P-38 thereby Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-18011 of 2008 -3- finding sufficient ground to summon all the three accused for offences under Sections 302, 342, 201 and 120 IPC on the basis of preliminary evidence led by the complainant and accordingly warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued against the accused. Feeling aggrieved, accused No.1 and 2 have filed the instant petition.
None has appeared for the petitioners today. Their counsel Mr. (Dr.)Vikas Vashishth, Advocate, Sonepat was contacted on his mobile telephone by the staff of this Court, but Mr. Vashishth told that the brief had been taken from him by the petitioners after obtaining 'no objection' from him for engaging some other counsel. Mr. Vashishth thus told that now he is not to appear for the petitioners in this case. None else has either appeared for the petitioners.
I have heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the case file.
Counsel for the complainant stated that the complaint has since been committed to Court of Session and the accused are facing trial in Court of Session.
Respondent-complainant has been running from pillar to post to seek prosecution of the accused including the petitioners. She approached this Court time and again and even had to approach Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ultimately respondent had to file impugned criminal complaint Annexure P- 37 of which cognizance was taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. All the three accused including the petitioners were Police officials posted in Police Station, Rai at the relevant time. Complainant's version is that her husband was illegally detained in the said Police Station from 25.12.1999 till 8.00pm on 28.12.1999 when he was left at his house by the Police Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-18011 of 2008 -4- officials and at that time, complainant's husband was bleeding profusely having been caused injuries and could not even walk. There is also oral dying declaration by the complainant's husband that all the three accused had tortured and beaten him resulting in his aforesaid condition. He succumbed to the injuries allegedly caused by the three accused including the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that no case for proceeding against the petitioners for any offence is made out from the averments made in the impugned complaint coupled with preliminary evidence led by the complainant including oral dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased to the complainant. It is said to be case of custodial torture and beating leading to death of complainant's husband.
Consequently, there is no sufficient ground for quashing the impugned criminal complainant and summoning order and consequent proceedings. The instant petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed.
However, nothing observed herein shall have any bearing on the merits of the case pending before the trial Court.
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 14th October, 2011 'raj'