Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parkash Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab & Another on 7 February, 2011
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
CRM No. M-33383 of 2009
-1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-33383 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 07.02.2011
Parkash Singh & others
.......... petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & another
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present : Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate
for respondents No. 8 to 13.
****
RITU BAHRI, J.
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for issuance of direction to the respondents to conduct fair, impartial and prompt investigation.
A prayer has been made to transfer the investigation of FIR No. 154 dated 6.10.2009 under Sections 380, 427 IPC Police Station Julkan to C.B.I. or any other independent agency.
Brief facts of the case are as under :-
That vide mortgage deed dated 27.10.2002 Annexure P- 1, Parkash Chand respondent No.8 mortgaged his shops with CRM No. M-33383 of 2009 -2- possession along with some land adjoining with it with petitioners No.
2 and 3. The shops were situated at Devigarh. Petitioners No. 2 & 3 have been in possession of the shops since then. Petitioner No.1 has been running a general merchant shop under the name M/s Mann General Store, whereas petitioner No. 2 has been running a photography shop, under the name of Millan Studio.
As per the petitioner, Parkash Chand respondent No. 8 entered into an agreement to sell the shops to petitioners No. 2 & 3 for Rs. 7,00,000/- and received Rs. 3,00,000/- as earnest money vide agreement to sell dated 22.4.2009 Annexure P-3.
Subsequently, Parkash Chand respondent No. 8 backed out of the agreement. A civil suit for permanent injunction for restraining Parkash Chand from forcibly dispossessing them except by following due process of law and from alienating the shops and then the petitioners No. 2 & 3 filed a suit for specific performance against Parkash Chand respondent No. 8 on 18.8.2009 in the Court at Patiala. Respondent Parkash Chand has been issued notice in both the cases.
An application was submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala on 16.6.2009 by respondent No. 8 that petitioners No. 2 & 3 were not vacating his shops and requested for getting the shops vacated. On 6.10.2009, at about 6/7 p.m., the private respondent along with 30/35 other persons came in a tractor trolley and a car and forcibly entered the shops of the petitioners and forcibly took away the major articles, including two computer sets, two printers, two cameras, one Photostat machine, prolights, UPS CRM No. M-33383 of 2009 -3- inverter set, two T.V. Sets and two Mobile sets etc. FIR No. 154 dated 6.10.2009 under Sections 380/427 IPC, was registered at P.S. Julkan. The petitioners complained to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala that proper investigation was not being done and the police should have been registered an FIR under Sections 395/427/148/149 IPC. A representation was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala on 21.10.2009.
On 12.11.2009, at about 3 p.m., the private respondents along with about two dozen more persons including Sh. Sarabjit Singh Cheema, Station House Officer P.S. Julkan and other police officials came to the shops of the petitioners. The stock present in the shops was thrown out and the whole public was witness to the scene. This incident was reported on 14.11.2009 in the news report. The petitioners made representations on 12.11.2009 to the Director General of Police, Punjab and the Punjab State Human Right s Commission.
In this background of the facts, the petitioners have come to this Court seeking appropriate direction ordering fair and impartial conducting of investigation.
During the pendency of this Criminal Miscellaneous the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patiala was directed to be present in Court on 3.12.2009. He informed that the matter was being inquired into by the SP(D) Patiala.
As per the status report, the Sr. Superintendent of Patiala after making the necessary inquiry transferred the investigation of the case FIR No. 154 dated 6.10.2009 P.S. Julka to the SP(D) Patiala, CRM No. M-33383 of 2009 -4- who was conducting inequiry into the complaint submitted by petitioner No.2 on 12.11.2009. A detailed inquiry has been conducted into the complaint dated 12.11.2009 and the FIR registered pertaining to the occurrence dated 6.10.2009, by associating all the related persons and after considering all the related documents to the case in question. From the investigation and inquiry conducted, it came to light that Respondent No. 8 mortgaged two shops situated in the area of Devigarh to petitioner No.2 on 27.3.2002 for a sum of Rs. 65,000/-. On 7.9.2005, respondent No. 8 paid a sum of Rs. 65,000/- back to petitioner No.2 and got the shops redeemed and despite this, the shops remained under the possession of petitioner No.2. Respondent No. 8 after getting the shops redeemed from petitioner No.2 started accepting rent from him. Subsequently, petitioner No.2 stopped paying rent to respondent No.2 on the plea that respondent No. 8 entered into agreement to sell with him, for selling these sops and had received an earned money of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Agreement to sell was also executed. Petitioner No. 2 filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement, which is pending.
Complainants were submitted by respondent No. 8 in the police station, but SI Sarabjit Singh did not take any action. On 6.10.2009, respondent No. 8 along with his accomplice connived and attacked with the intention to take forcibly possession of shops from Petitioner No.2. After this incident, this FIR No. 154 dated 6.10.2009 was registered at Police Station Julkan under Sections 380, 427 IPC. However, Section 447 IPC was not added in the FIR by the SHO. In this way, he helped the accused. The inquiry Officer CRM No. M-33383 of 2009 -5- has now recommended to add Section 447 IPC in the FIR.
Respondent No. 6 SI Sarabjit Singh, SHO P.S. Julkan did not stop here and on the next day recorded the statements of Balbir Singh s/o Parkash Singh and his wife Rani of the accused party and registered the cross case against the complainant party under Sections 336, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act.
On inquiry it has been found that SI Sarabjit Singh wrongly registered the case against the complainant party, therefore, cancellation of the same was recommended. As per the medical report, the injuries received by Balbir Singh and Rani have been proved to be self suffered.
On 12.11.2009, the shop of the petitioners was attacked again in broad day light. The articles lying in t he shops were stolen. No action was taken by the SHO despite receipt of information.
As per the inquiry officer, SI Sarabjit Singh, SHO was recommended to be placed under suspension and to cancell the cross case registered against the complainant party besides adding Section 447 IPC against the accused in the earlier FIR N. 154 of 2009.
Apart from this, FIR No. 186 dated 14.12.2009 under Sections 447, 427, 148, 149 IPC has been registered against all the accused including the then SHO PS Julkan, Patiala for the occurrence dated 12.11.2009.
Finally, the inquiry officer, Ranbir Singh Khatra, PPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, the grievance of the CRM No. M-33383 of 2009 -6- petitioners have been duly redressed by conducting an impartial inquiry to the occurrence dated 12.11.2009. Role of the then SHO SI Sarabjit Singh and transferring the investigation of FIR No. 154 dated 6.10.2009 to SP(D), Patiala. Section 447 IPC has been approved to be added in the Sections of FIR No. 154 dated 6.10.2009.
Mr. A.K. Walia, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in spite of the fact that Superintendent of Police entrusted the investigation and the FIR has been registered against SHO Sarabjit Singh and the SHO has been suspended from service and Section 447 IPC has been added in the FIR No. 154 dated 6.10.2009. He is not satisfied with the way investigation will be carried out. He submits that once the investigation has been conducted by the local police in a biased manner, the investigation should be transferred to CBI or other independent agency outside the District. In broad day light his shops were looted and the possession was taken forcibly in connivance with the police by the private respondents. He has placed reliance on the judgments of the Honb'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedar Narayan Pardia & Ors. vs. State of Orissa & Anr. 2009(4) RCR Criminal 479 and D. Venkatasubramaniam & Ors. vs. M.K. Mohan Mkrishnamachari & Anr. 2009(4) RCR (Crl.) 318 and Sarbdeep Singh Virk vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) Law Herald (P&H) 917 to contend that the High Court has wide powers at the stage of investigation. Further it is brought to the notice of this court that t he investigation was conducted in a mala fide manner, be transferred it to an independent CRM No. M-33383 of 2009 -7- agency.
Mr. M.S. Joshi, learned counsel for respondents No. 8 to 13 states that FIR under Section 120-B IPC has been registered against the petitioner for forging a false agreement to sell which the respondents were never a party. The respondents had redeemed mortgage by paying Rs. 65,000/- to the petitioners and there was no question of selling the shops to the petitioners thereafter.
Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab has argued that in a decision a to which agency was to investigate the matter, the principle of natural justice are not attracted. An accused does not have a right to choose the investigating agency.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
After going through the entire record and facts of the case, it is clear that the Superintendent of Police, Patiala has conducted very fair investigation. Once the matter was brought to his notice and investigation of FIR No. 154 h as been transferred to SP (D), Patiala, the SHO Sarabjit Singh has been suspended and Section 447 IPC has been added in the FIR. The grievance of the petitioners has been duly redressed.
After going through the status report, no ground is made out for transferring the investigation to the CBI or any other agency.
Crl. Misc. is dismissed.
07.02.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE