Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Chhabra And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 May, 2012
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP No. 18603 of 2010 (O&M)
and connected case 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CWP No. 18603 of 2010 (O&M)
Ravi Chhabra and another
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
2. CWP No. 3144 of 2011 (O&M)
Shiv Nath Singh @ Shibu
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
Date of decision : 10.05.2012
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr.Kanwaljit Singh Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rohit Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. P.S.Thiara, Addl. AG, Punjab
Mr. H.S.Guram, Advocate
Mr.Sidharth Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Yogesh Malhotra, Advocate
Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Advocate
Mr. Deepender Brar, Advocate for respondent
nos. 8 and 9 in CWP No. 3144 of 2011
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing nos.18603 CWP No. 18603 of 2010 (O&M) and connected case 2 of 2010 and 3144 of 2011.
The petitioner in CWP No. 3144 of 2011 has approached this Court essentially with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent nos.1 and 2 to hand over the investigation of the case registered as FIR No. 172 dated 4.12.2010 under Sections 307, 120-B, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54 Arms Act registered at Police Station Division no. 5, Jalandhar and FIR No. 173 dated 4.12.2010 under Sections 307, 452, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54 Arms Act registered at Police Station Divn. No. 2, Jalandhar to the CBI or any independent agency.
Likewise, other petition bearing CWP No. 18603 of 2010 has been filed where a similar writ in the nature of mandamus is sought to transfer the investigation of FIR No.144 dated 25.8.2009 registered under Sections 307, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25/54 Arms Act at Police Station Divn. No.5, Jalandhar to an independent agency, as the police is not acting impartially. A direction for providing adequate security to the petitioners by respondents no .1 to 4 has also been sought.
The facts as given before this Court to a large extent in so far as the registration of the FIRs are concerned inter se between the parties is at the behest of the petitioners either in CWP No. 3144 of 2011 or in CWP No. 18603 of 2010 or at the behest of their close associates or relatives. The number of FIRs registered indicate a deep rooted animosity between the two factions. The FIRs which have been so registered can be detailed as follows:-
a) FIR No. 83 dated 13.6.2010 registered at the behest of Ashwani Kumar against Ravi Chhabra.CWP No. 18603 of 2010 (O&M)
and connected case 3
b) FIR No. 88 dated 13.6.2009 registered at the behst of Amit Sharma against Kamaljit Singh brother of the petitioner - Shiv Nath Singh (case is pending trial)
c) FIR No. 144 dated 25.8.2009 (subject matter of CWP No.18603 of 2010 ) got registered by Kuldeep Singh and associate Ravi Chhabra against Kamaljit Singh brother of Shiv Nath.
d) FIR No. 22 dated 16.2.2010 by Ravi Chhabra against the petitioner.
e) FIR No. 172 dated 4.12.2010 by Manpreet and Kamaljit as complainants.
f) FIR No. 173 dated 4.12.2010 by Kuldeep Singh -
complainant.
All these cases have been registered under the various provisions of Indian Penal Code and as noticed above some are at the stage of investigation while some are at the stage of trial while in one of these cases challan has been submitted and charges framed.
The fact that in two of the cases, charges have been framed and the matter is before the Trial Court indicate atleast one thing that prima facie the complicity of the persons named in the FIR stands established in the investigation conducted by the police.
It is three FIRs namely 172, 173 and 144 in which the petitioners in both the writ petitions complain about lack of proper investigation by the police. During the course of hearing this Court vide order dated 6.4.2011 ordered the constitution of a special investigation team, the report of which has been submitted to the Court. The special investigation team so constituted has recorded its findings regarding the CWP No. 18603 of 2010 (O&M) and connected case 4 veracity of the incidents that reflected in the aforesaid FIRs and has also referred to some lapses on the part of the investigating officers but undeniably it has established the fact of the incidents having taken place which form the backbone of the allegations in the said FIRs. It has also been noticed that there has been some exaggeration made by the complainants.
Be that as it may, the Court does not wish to comment upon the findings recorded by the special investigation team and suffice it to say that there have been certain deficiencies found in the investigation regarding which the Court will make appropriate observations in the latter part of the judgment for the reason that the Court in the scenario that has emerged would like to examine the prayer that has been made in the petition.
The petitioners have prayed for protection of their lives and liberty and have also prayed that investigation be got conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Initially when the contentions were raised it was sought to be projected that the instances themselves are false and the petitioners are being victimized by the registration of false cases.
Apparently it was on account of such projection that the Court had constituted special investigation team which has not found the instances to be untrue but have merely commented upon exaggerating all the sorts by both the parties and have established some undesirable deficiencies in the investigation.
In view of the fact that the instances having not been found to be incorrect entirely it would be unwise for the Court to comment upon them as it is likely to prejudice the case of either of the parties when they CWP No. 18603 of 2010 (O&M) and connected case 5 go to trial.
The protection of life and liberty of a citizen is the function of government and it is for the official respondents and the functionaries of the police to evaluate the threat perception to an individual and take necessary steps in this regard to safeguard such citizens and protect from any untoward incident or violent activity. Noticing the fact that the petitioners in both the writ petitions are levelling accusations against each other and are involved in number of cases it would be appropriate to give directions to official respondents No. 2 to 4 (in CWP No. 18603 of 2010) to ensure that the parties desist from such violent activities which promote insecurity in the society.
The Court is not oblivious of the fact that it may not be entirely possible for the respondents to prohibit and prevent such instances but certainly serious measures can be put in place so as to obviate any harm to life and liberty and property. It is expected that the official respondents will do the needful in this regard. In so far as remaining prayers of the petitioners are concerned regarding the handing over the matter to an independent agency, the same already stands addressed by the constitution of special investigation team . Wherever certain deficiencies have been found in the investigation, the remedial measures will be taken by the official respondents in accordance with law. They are at liberty to move an appropriate application under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C in the eventuality of such a need being fell.
In so far as petitioners are concerned, in number of cases challan has been submitted and charges framed and the trial may be at various stages of its process. The petitioners needless to say have the CWP No. 18603 of 2010 (O&M) and connected case 6 liberty to take recourse to various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pursue their ends to ensure a free and fair trial.
The Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India would not ordinarily take over the reins of a trial and the criminal process, moreso, when the bona fides of the petitioners are suspected as both of them are involved in activities prejudicial to each other and the society.
The petitions are, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue their remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate Courts where the proceedings are pending.
Beyond the aforesaid, this Court does not feel inclined to pass any directions. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
May 10, 2012 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge