CRM No. M 35012 of 2009 1 v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

3. Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for direction to the respondents to hand over the investigation of the case FIR No. 32 dated 30.04.2007 under Section 307, 326, 34, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Malerkotla, District Sangrur (Annexure P1) to some independent agency like CBI as despite the three enquiry reports, the police is not taking any action against the accused. It is contended that the private respondents along with other accused tried to kill the petitioner while throwing acid on his face and grievous injuries were caused to the petitioner by the accused and due to CRM No. M 35012 of 2009 2 acid injuries, the face of the petitioner have developed permanent scars and the matter was reported to the Police and therefore, the present FIR was registered. It is also contended that in response to the order passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, respondent No. 3 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malerkotla filed interim report dated 06.11.2007 before the Punjab State Human Rights Commissioner, stating therein that the action against the accused would be taken soon and challan would be presented thereafter. It is also contended that Respondent No. 2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur also filed report dated 14.11.2007 before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, stating therein that the accused would be arrested soon and after that challan would be presented against them as after inquiry, the allegations made in the FIR are found to be correct. Another enquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police (D), Barnala and he also submitted report dated 31.05.2008 making recommendations to take action against the accused as the allegations are found to be correct. The report was submitted by the SP(D), Barnala to respondent No. 2-SSP Sangrur on 31.05.2008. It is contended that even after conducting three different enquiries and allegations found to be correct, no action has been taken till date. Upon notice, reply in the form of affidavit of Sukhdev Singh Virk, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Malerkotla on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 4 has been filed stating as under:- “5. A cancellation report in the present case was presented on 23.02.2010 before the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate, but the complainant did not agree with the cancellation report submitted by the Police and CRM No. M 35012 of 2009 3 thus, the learned Court returned the case file and ordered to re-investigate the case. In compliance of the directions given by the learned Court the re- investigation has been entrusted by the SSP, Sangrur to the Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Sangrur vide order dated 01.03.2020 and the same is in progress. After the completion of the investigation by SP, Head Quarters, Sangrur final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. will be presented in the concerned Court of Illaqa Magistrate.” Today, Mr. K S Pannu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from ASI-Mandhir Singh, has brought to the notice of this Court that in pursuance to the enquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter, Sangrur, cancellation report is once again being submitted. One of the main reasons for submission of cancellation report is that a Medical Board consisting of three doctors was constituted by the Civil Surgeon, Sangrur and the Medical Board opined that “we are of the opinion that possibility of self application or friendly hand cannot be ruled out.” The aforesaid report has been placed on record as R-1. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. In fact, a perusal of report R1 shows that the said opinion was given on the basis of written record only and the patient was not examined. Moreover, it is specifically mentioned that the opinion should be corroborated with the available circumstantial evidence. It is not denied that as per the three different enquiries conducted by DSP, Malerkotla dated

06.11.2007 and by SSP, Sangrur dated 14.11.2007 and another enquiry conducted by SP (D), Barnala dated 31.05.2008 action was recommended against the accused. CRM No. M 35012 of 2009 4 Normally, this Court would not have interfered once the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been submitted before the concerned Court and the court was fully empowered to make appropriate directions. However, in the facts of the present case, which has turned to be a very sensitive matter, where doubt is cast on the functioning of the investigating agency in view of the challan having not been filed in spite of the aforesaid three different enquiries recommending action and that cancellation report was submitted which was not accepted by the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, prays that the investigation therefore, be handed over to some independent agency like the CBI. The Magistrate although has ample powers under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure including ensuring the proper investigation, cannot hand over the investigation to any other agency. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the material on record is not sufficient to call for an investigation by the CBI. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the investigation is now conducted by the present SSP, Sangrur-Shri Naunihal Singh. Admittedly, there had been contradictory inquiry reports. In order to finally settle the matter at rest and in the interest of justice, the prayer of the petitioner is fair and justified. Accordingly, Shri Naunihal Singh, SSP, Sangrur is directed to take over the investigation and personally enquire into the allegations made by the petitioner and after conducting the same in a fair and impartial CRM No. M 35012 of 2009 5 manner, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. be submitted. Handing over the investigation does not mean that the Court wants a successful prosecution. It should be understood that the handing over of the investigation has been done with a view to find out the truth. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the concerned SSP, Sangrur had also given approval to the final report of the cancellation. It is, therefore, made clear that the SSP, Sangrur shall not be influenced by the earlier approval accorded by him and shall investigate and appreciate the entire evidence afresh within a reasonable time and submit his report before the concerned Court for further proceedings in accordance with law. Disposed of in the above terms. August 05, 2010 (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge