Delhi High Court
Har Charan Singh Kohli vs The Commissioner Of Police And Ors. on 1 September, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996IVAD(DELHI)748, 65(1997)DLT731
Author: S.K. Mahajan
Bench: S.K. Mahajan
JUDGMENT S.K. Mahajan, J.
(1) On an information having been received by the police at Ps Vasant Vihar on22nd January, 1994 at about 5.00 p.m., the staff of the police station left for house N0. D-3/3122, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and the dead bodies of Capt. Saranpal Kohli, his wife Smt. Rajesh Kohli and two sons, namely" Tegh Pratap Singh and Rana Pratap Singh aged about/years and 3 years respectively were found lying on the floor of the flat in two different rooms. On the statement made by the petitioner, case Fir No. 20/94 was registered and the investigation was entrusted to the then Sho, Ps Vasant Kunj. After investigation, the accused, namely. Ram Pal Singh Chauhan and Parminder Singh were arrested and trial for their having committed an offence punishable under Sections 302/392/382 with 120B, Indian Penal Code is now continuing in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. After more than two years of the gruesome murder of the aforesaid four members of the family and after recording the statement of about eleven witnesses by the Additional Sessions Judge during the trial of the case, the petitioner has filed this petition for entrusting the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation and in the meantime to stay the trial proceedings pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge against the accused persons.
(2) The allegations as made in the petition are that the police had filed the challan on 16th May, 1994 without report of the Cfsl and the challan is based upon the observations that ; (1) there was no forcible entry in the flat; (2) killers were known to the murdered family; and (3) the nature and condition of ransacked flat showed that the flat was ransacked for a special purpose and there was no motive of robbery of valuable goods. It has also been alleged in the petition that the challan revealed inherent contradictions inasmuch as the accused came to know the deceased Capt. Saranpal Singh Kohli through a share broker Mr. Matta as Ram Pal Singh Chauhan, one of the accused, was allegedly his employee, however, the name of Mr. Matta did not appear either in the list of witnesses or in the category of persons acquainted with the facts of the case. According to the petitioner, therefore, the police has not investigated the case properly. Moreover, the petitioner, as alleged in the petition, had in his letter dated 2nd May, 1994 written to the police to investigate this case from the angle of someone from the in-laws family of Capt. Saranpal Singh Kohli to be involved in the case. It is, therefore, stated that the entire investigation in the case is perfunctory in nature and the police/investigating Officers have acted in a partisan manner to shield the culprits and on account of alleged improper investigation, the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences. It is on these allegations that the petitioner wants the investigation to be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
(3) While one can appreciate the trauma which must have been faced by the petitioner due to the death of his son, daughter-in-law and his two grand-sons,however, is the police bound to investigate the matter as per the wishes of the person whose family members have been killed? The murder was committed in January, 1994 and it is after a period of more than two years that the petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the matter. In the meantime, the police has not only arrested the accused but after committal to the Court of Sessions, the said accused are facing trial and the statement of as many as eleven witnesses had been recorded by early January, 1996. The petitioner himself appeared as a witness on behalf of the prosecution during trial and he had not said anything about the investigation being perfunctory or the matter having not been investigated in a proper manner. The Investigating Agency in the present case has examined the case from all possible angles including personal enmity, professional jealousy, robbery, loss in business, as the deceased was stated to have been dealing in shares, etc. During the course of investigation chance prints were lifted, Cfsl team was called and the dogs squad was also summoned. The finger prints of 52 suspected persons were taken and sent to the finger print bureau for comparison with chance prints lifted from the spot. On receipt of the information from finger print bureau that one of the chance prints lifted from the spot tallied with the fingerprint of one Ram Pal Singh Chauhan, the said Ram Pal Singh Chauhan was interrogated and he confessed his guilt and was arrested on 19th February, 1994. In his confessional statement, he named the co-accused Parminder Singh who was also arrested from Tundla, Uttar Pradesh. On the basis of the disclosure of the accused, jewellery was recovered which was duly identified by the petitioner. Some of the shares of the deceased were also recovered from the house of co-accused. Parminder Singh and the same were duly connected with the cri me. On 26th February, 1994 the weapon of of fence, namely, two gandasas were recovered from the hill on Nelson Mandela Marg, near Power House, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi which were having blood stains. Mr. R.K. Matta with whom the deceased used to have regular business regarding shares was also interrogated on several occasions. Besides taking his finger prints, he was also put to a polygraph test but no material could be found to connect him with the crime. Challan in the first instance was filed on 16th May, 1996 without the Cfsl report as the accused would have been entitled to be released on bail, in case, the challan was not filed within the statutory period of ninety days. The step-brother of Smt. Rajesh Kohli, deceased, was also interrogated by the police. Police also interrogated Amarjit and Inder Pal.
(4) As has been held by me in Personal Point v. State, , the standard of investigation has to be Judged not from the view point of the petitioner but from the point as to whether the investigation is being carried out ' impartially and without any bias. On the basis of the material on record and after having carefully gone through the judicial file of the case, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the petitioner that the investigation has been carried out in a partisan manner. In my opinion, the police has investigated the matter thoroughly and has not left any angle untouched. Even those persons whom the petitioner in the present petition wanted to be interrogated were duly interrogated by the police, however,nothing was found against them and they were not involved in the commission of crime. It i? not that police must implicate a person in the commission of offence merely because the 'petioner wanted them to be implicated. A person is sent for trial on the basis of his involvement in the commission of offence ^ ^ and not on the whims and fancies of an individual. As I have already said it is unfortunate that four members of the family of the petitioner had been killed in a gruesome murder, however, that itself cannot be a ground to direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation merely because certain persons whom the petitioner wanted to be arrested or wanted to be involved in the crime were found not in any manner connected with the offence as per investigation carried out by the police. For a period of more than two years from the date of commission of offence, no complaint had been made by the petitioner and in one of the letters he has even recommended the laudable work done by the police in arresting the accused persons within a short period.
(5) It is only in very rare cases where the party is able to satisfy the Court that investigation carried out by the police is partisan or has not been carried out in a ^' proper manner or any material witness or document has not been investigated Upon by the investigating agency that a case may be made out for transfer of investigation from one agency to the other. In this case, not only that, in my opinion, no case has been made out for transfer of investigation to any other agency but such a transfer would only hamper the trial which is now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge against the accused persons. The Courts will not interfere in the police investigation subject of course to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when either the police is not investigating the matter properly or. it is being investigated in a partisan manner. Though learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain judgments reported as GudalureM.J. Cherian and others v. Union of India and Others, ; C.A Gopalan v. Inspector General of Police, Crimes and Others, 1993 Criminal Law Journal 1543; and Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration and Another, in support of his contention, however,in my opinion, none of the judgments is of any assistance to the petitioner.
(6) In this case, I am satisfied that the investigation carried out by the police was not partisan and was adequate and satisfactory. On August 2, 1996 it was brought to my notice that 100 equity shares of M/s. Bses, registered in the name of the deceased, were lodged for transfer after his death and as this matter had not been brought to the notice of the police, the same was not investigated. Mr.Aggarwal had assured the Court that in view of the matter now coming before the police, necessary investigations will be carried out and any further document which the petitioner intends to hand over to the police, will also be taken into consideration at the time of further investigation into the matter. I had, therefore, directed further investigation into the aspect of the transfer of shares and such investigation was to be conducted by a Senior Officer of the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police.
(7) For the foregoing reasons and in view of the directions given on August 2, 1996, I do not see any reason to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the matter.
(8) IN my view, there are no merits in the petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.