Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tralochan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 5 August, 2022
CRM-M-14691-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases -1-
207+263 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
IOIN-CRM-M-14691-2021 in/and
1. CRM-M-14691-2021
Date of Decision: 05.08.2022
Rajinder Singh and another
......Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab
.........Respondent
2. CRM-M-12369-2021 (O&M)
Harjit Singh
......Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
3. CRM-M-28225-2021 (O&M)
Tralochan Singh and others
....Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
4. CRM-M-691-2021 (O&M)
Gopal Singh
...Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
5. CRM-M-41165-2021 (O&M)
Gopal Singh
...Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 10-08-2022 22:39:26 :::
CRM-M-14691-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases -2-
Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate,
for the petitioners
(in CRM-Ms-14691, 12369 and 28225 of 2021)
Mr. Prabhjot Singh Waraich, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CRM-Ms-691 and 41165 of 2021) and
for the complainant
(in CRM-Ms-14691, 12369 and 28225 of 2021.
Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, D.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Munish Kapila, Advocate, for respondent no. 12
(in CRM-M-28225-2021).
*****
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
IOIN-CRM-M-14691-2021
The case file has been put up by the Registry in view of the fact
that in the order passed on the last date of hearing, i.e. July 21, 2022, the date
given at the end of the order has inadvertently been written as January 21,
2022, instead of July 21, 2022. The correction has been made in the order by
pen.
In view of the above, the said order, which has already been
uploaded on the internet, be got deleted and the same be substituted with the
corrected order, mentioning the correct date, i.e. July 21, 2022.
CRM-M-28225-2021
This petition has been filed under the provisions of Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to respondents no. 2 to 4 to comply
with the instructions dated 01.04.2008 (Annexure P-18) and 24.05.2009
(copy Annexure P-19), and to not initiate parallel/multiple inquiries, as
investigation stands concluded in the case bearing FIR No. 108, dated
17.07.2020, registered at Police Station Khanna City-II, District Ludhiana,
alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under the provisions
2 of 6
CRM-M-14691-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases -3-
of Sections 341/323/506/34 (with Section 308 thereof having been added
later after deleting Section 307 thereof as per 'Zimini' no. 14), as the
aforesaid instructions dated 01.04.2008 and 24.05.2009 prohibit multiple
inquries and instructions have been upheld after interpretation by this court
vide its judgment dated 12.01.2009 passed in CRM-M-18244-2008 (copy
Annexure P-20).
In terms of the last order dated 21.07.2022, an affidavite dated
03.08.2022, executed by the Assistant Inspector General of Police,
Litigation, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab, has been filed in court today,
which is ordered to be taken on record.
From the aforesaid affidavit, learned State counsel points to
Annexure R-2, which is a copy of 'file notings' referring to the orders passed
in this petition; and with the last part of the typed file noting reading as
follows:-
"In view of the above order dated
23.05.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court, the file
may submitted to DGP, Punjab, for ex-post facto
approval of the order passed by the then
Director, BOI, whereby representation of
Sukhdeep Kaur was entrusted for examination to
AIG/Investigation, BOI (See F/X and para 4
above)."
Thereafter, the matter was seen to have been put up to the DGP,
Punjab, who, as per the instructions of learned State counsel,made a noting
as follows:-
"Para 8 approved", with his initial/signature dated 01.02.2022
seen below that noting.
3 of 6
CRM-M-14691-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases -4-
Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the
DGP obviously did not apply his mind to the subject and only approved of
the Director Bureau of Investigation looking into the matter in view of
various orders passed by this court.
Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand submits
that though that 'technically may be correct' however, even the noting made
by the IGP, Ludhiana Range, for further inquiry/re-inquiry after the initial
inquiry had already been made upon a complaint filed, would also be found
to be similar.
He further submits that the complainant suffered an injury on his
head at the hands of the petitioners and being 78 years old, the issue in the
matter is as to whether the injury would amount to an offence punishable
under the provisions of Section 307 or 308 of the IPC and consequently, the
appropriate authority as this court considers it fit may be directed to go into
that basic issue.
Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioners (accused), on the
other hand submits that as per the investigation report approved by the IGP,
Ludhiana Range, in fact the injury itself was a fabricated one and
consequently, no further investigation is required.
Looking at the aforesaid facts, in the opinion of this court
further pendency of the petition only on the issue of the correct procedure
followed or not followed by the investigating agency in firstly ordering the
second inquiry and thereafter another inquiry/investigation by the Director
Bureau of Investigation, would serve no purpose; and therefore exercising
4 of 6
CRM-M-14691-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases -5-
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. it is directed by this court that
the Director Bureau of Investigation should go into the matter thoroughly
and examine it from all aspects, including the reports earlier filed, as also the
medical evidence presented by both sides and thereafter come to a
conclusion as to whether any offence was made out; and if so under what
provision of law, and consequently, take the proceedings in the FIR to their
logical conclusion.
The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
CRM-Ms-691 and 41165 of 2021
Vide these petitions also, fair investigation in the matter is
sought.
Thus, with the order hereinabove passed, these petitions are also
disposed of in the same terms.
CRM-Ms-14691 and 12369 of 2021
By these petitions, the petitioners seek the concession of 'pre-
arrest bail' in the context of the same FIR registered at Police Station Khanna
City-II, District Ludhiana.
An affidavit on behalf of the State already having been filed
earlier that the petitioners' custodial interrogation is not required, therefore,
in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in MC Abraham
vs. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 649, without making any comment
whatsoever on the actual merits of the case, the petitions are allowed, with
the order 09.04.2021 passed in CRM-M-14691-2021, and the one dated
17.03.2021 in CRM-M-12369-2021, admitting the petitioners to interim bail,
are made absolute.
5 of 6
CRM-M-14691-2021 (O&M) and other connected cases -6-
However, it is made clear that if upon further
inquiry/investigation by the Director Bureau of Investigation, the custodial
interrogation of the petitioners is required for any reason, naturally,
appropriate proceedings in that regard would be initiated, which (again
obviously) would be considered on their own merits.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the other
connected cases.
August 05, 2022 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH)
nitin JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
6 of 6
