Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bachittar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 September, 2000
Author: V.M. Jain
Bench: V.M. Jain
ORDER V.M. Jain, J.
1. This is apetition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the complainant seeking withdrawal of the investigation from the local police and for entrusting the same to the CB1 or Crime Branch of the Punjab Police in respect of FIR No. 66 dated 26.8.1999 under Section 302 IPC of P.S. Ghanaur, District Patiala.
2. Heard. The murder of Dheeraj Singh (son of the petitioner) had taken place on 25.8.1999. On the next day i.e. on 26.8.1999, the FIR was lodged with the police by respondent No. 6 Harchand Singh. It has been alleged by the petitioner that even though his son Dheeraj Singh was murdered by respondents 5 to 8 including respondent No. 6 Harchand Singh, who had lodged the FIR, yet no action was being taken by the police against the accused, whereas one Dulli @ Dilbir Singh is being implicated by the police for the murder of Dheeraj Singh, even though said Dulli @ Dilbir Singh is innocent. It was alleged that the petitioner has made various representations to SSP Patiala that in fact murder of his son Dheeraj Singh was committed by respondents 5 to 8, but no action was taken by the SSP in this regard. Itwas accordingly prayed that investigation of the case be withdrawn from the police and be handed over to CB1 or Crime Branch of the Punjab Police. The said petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dated 31.1.2000.
3. Notice in the said petition was issued to respondents. Naunihal Singh, IPS. Assistant Superintendent of Police, Patiala, has filed reply on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, in the form of affidavit alleging therein that the challan had already been presented in the court on 7.2.200 after the accused was arrested and the case was investigated by the police. It was alleged that the police had also recorded the statement of Bachittar Singh, petitioner under Section 175 Cr.P.C. Copy of the said statement has been attached along-with the written reply. It was alleged that the actual accused has been traced during investigation. It was further allegedthat the petitioner had signed the post mortem report of the deceased. It was further alleged that the prosecution had recorded the statements of various witnesses, including the statement of one Ram Chand, who had made his statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Copy ofthe said statement was attached with the written statement. It was alleged that except levelling allegations, the petitioner had not produced any eye-witness/document against respondents 5 to 8. It was alleged that the representations made by the petitioner were enquired into but the allegations made therein were found to be incorrect and as such the representations were filed. Respondents 5 to 8 also filed a reply by way of affidavit of respondent No. 7 Jaspal Singh.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parlies and have gone through the record carefully.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before me that the facts and circumstance the case required re-investigation of the case by an independent agency like CBI or Crime Branch of the Punjab Police. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the State and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 8 submitted before me that since the challan has already been put in the court against some other accused, the petitioner (father of the deceased), if is still dis-satisfied with the investigation would always be at liberty to move Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure for re-investigation of the case. However, so far this court is concerned, no case was made out for ordering re-investigation of the case at this stage. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by this Court, in the case Gurdev Singh v. The State of Punjab bearing Crl. M.No. 5086-M of 2000 decided on 29.5.2000 (2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 592 (P&H)) by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amar Bir Singh Gill. Reliance was also placed on the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the ease reported as 1998(8) SCC661:1997(1) RCR (Crl.) 702 (SC), Union of India and others v. Sushil Kumar Mode and others.
6. In the present case, as referred to above, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dated 31.1.2000. However, it was filed in this court for the first time on 11.2.2000, as per the endorsement made on the paper took. Thus, it would be clear that the present petition was filed in the court on 11.2.2000, after the challan was put in the court on 7.2.2000. In Gurdev Singh's case (supra), the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking re-investigation of the case under Sections 302/34 IPC. After noticing that the petitioner is seeking re-investigation of the case which was pending trial in the court, it was directed by this Court that the petitioner, if so advised, may move an application to the trial Court giving sufficient cause for re-investigation of the case under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. However, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not entertained as an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under the law.
7. In 1996(2) SCC 199, Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India and another, it was held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in those cases where the charge sheet has been filed in the court, it is that court which will then deal with the case in accordance with law.
8. In the present case, the challan has already been put in the court. Under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. the petitioner would be competent io apply before the lliaqa Magistrate/trial Court, seeking re-investigation of the case giving sufficient cause for the re-investigation of the case. If a case is made out for re-investigation, the learned Magistrate/Court concerned would be competent to pass necessary orders in this regard. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move the Magistrate/Court concerned for appropriate relief under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
9. Petition dismissed.