Petitioner sought transfer of murder investigation to CBI under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Court found no deficiency or defect in police investigations despite magistrate accepting cancellation report. Transfer dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Crl.Misc.No. M-15124 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No. M-15124 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision : 10.12.2012
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Petitioner Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. A.S.Khinda, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate for respondent Nos 4 & 5
JITENDRA CHAUHAN,J. Crl.Misc. No. 73685 of 2012
Allowed as prayed for. Reply on behalf of respondents No. 4 & 5 is taken on record.
Main case
This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for transferring the investigation of the case in FIR No. 108 dated 7.6.2005 u/s 302 IPC, registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
In brief, the facts of the case are that petitioner Balwinder Singh lodged the FIR No. 108 dated 7.6.2005, under section 302 IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, alleging that his fatherBhajan Singh had gone to the fields of Partap Singh on 6.6.2005. Next day, Nirmal Singh, brother of Partap Singh informed him that his father was lying in the borewell of the electric motor. The petitioner accompanied by his uncle Chanchal Singh went to the spot and found the dead body of his father lying in the well. Blood was noticed near the electric motor room. Statement of the petitioner was recorded with regard to murder of his father
2
Crl.Misc.No. M-15124 of 2012
by some unknown persons. Post mortem of the dead body was carried out. During post-mortem, 13 injuries were noticed. A complaint was also made by the uncle of the petitioner suspecting Sukhdev Singh and Santokh Singh, respondents No. 4 & 5 in the commission of the offence.
During investigation, involvement of Santokh Singh and Sukhdev Singh could not establish. Accordingly, an untraced report was filed by the police on 4.9.2007, which was rejected by the trial court and order for re-investigation in the case was passed.
Re-investigation of the matter was carried out. Again untraced report was presented before the Illaqa Magistrate. The complainant alleged that Santokh Singh and Sukhdev Singh were interrogated and accordingly Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 31.10.2008, sent the case back to the police for further investigation. Statements of alleged Santokh Singh and Sukhdev Singh were recorded alongwith certain respectables of the village community. The alleged involvement of Santokh Singh and Sukhdev Singh again was not made out. On 30.10.2009, the Illaqa Magistrate accepted the cancellation report, in the case, with liberty to the complainant to file a separate complaint.
Learned State counsel submits that petitioner has not filed any complaint with regard to murder of his father. The Investigating agency has re-investigated the matter. The cancellation report in the case has been filed and accepted by the Illaqa Magistrate.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 submits that petitioner has named Sukhdev Singh and Santokh Singh due to factionalism in the village. Petitioner has been continuously trying to implicate respondents No. 4 & 5 in this case. The matter was investigated and re-
Crl.Misc.No. M-15124 of 2012 3
investigated but the respondents No. 4 & 5 were found innocent. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that during reinvestigation of the case, the respondents were associated with the investigation and were thoroughly interrogated. The inhabitants of the village were also associated with the investigation and it was proved that respondents No. 4 & 5 were not responsible for the murder of the father of the petitioner. It was also mentioned in the reply that Ravi Pal was not the son of the deceased Bhajan Singh, nor he was the complainant in the present case. The present FIR was lodged on 7.6.2005. Ravi Pal expired on 25.6.2005. The murder of Ravi Pal has no connection with the present FIR. Respondents No. 4 & 5 were named in the present FIR in the year 2007.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
A perusal of the record shows that involvement of respondents No. 4 & 5, Sukhdev Singh and Santokh Singh could not be established during investigation. The matter has been investigated into twice. The Ld. Illaqa Magistrate accepted the cancellation report, prepared by the police on 30.10.2009. The petitioner has been given a liberty to file a separate complaint, which he has not availed. He filed the present petition seeking transfer of the investigation to the C.B.I.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to state any deficiency or defect in the investigation carried out by the police. In the circumstances, no ground to transfer the abovesaid case/FIR to the C.B.I for investigation is made out. Dismissed.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) 10.12.2012 JUDGE MS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is sufficient ground to transfer the investigation of a murder FIR with an uninvestigated cancellation report to the CBI under section 482 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Balwinder Singh
State of Punjab
Sukhdev Singh
Santokh Singh
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
