Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court questioned the Punjab Government over the delay in filing an FIR against police officials accused of assaulting an Army officer. It sought a status report on the inaction despite available medical evidence, noting “serious allegations” against senior officials.
The case arose from a petition filed by Colonel Pushpinder Singh Bath, currently posted at the Army headquarters in New Delhi. According to the petition, on the night of March 13, four Punjab Police officers of inspector rank, along with their armed subordinates, allegedly assaulted the petitioner and his son without provocation. The petitioner contended that despite the severity of the incident, no immediate action was taken by the local police. The petition further stated that distress calls to senior police officials were ignored, and instead of lodging an FIR based on the petitioner’s statement, the police registered a separate FIR under 'affray' against unidentified individuals based on a third-party complaint. The petitioner alleged that it was only after repeated representations to senior police officers and the Governor of Punjab that a proper FIR was finally registered, eight days after the incident.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay in registering the FIR was deliberate and indicated a bias in the investigation. The petitioner sought a transfer of the investigation to a central agency, citing “conflict of interest, delay, and lack of impartiality” in the Punjab Police’s handling of the case. It was contended that the failure to act promptly on the complaint of an Army officer demonstrated an attempt to shield the police personnel involved.
The Court took serious note of the allegations and expressed concern over the failure of the Punjab Police to act in accordance with legal procedures. It noted that the allegations involved senior-ranking police officials, making it imperative for the State to ensure transparency and fairness in the investigation.
The Bench questioned the State on why the FIR was not registered immediately despite medical evidence supporting the petitioner’s claims. The Court emphasized that once a cognizable offence is reported, law enforcement authorities have a statutory duty to register an FIR without undue delay. It sought a response on what justification the State had for failing to take prompt action.
The Court further directed the State to clarify whether the medico-legal reports of Constable Randhir Singh and Inspector Ronny Singh, who were allegedly injured in the incident, were provided to the concerned police officer for FIR registration. It also questioned why a medical alcohol test of the police officers accused of the assault was not conducted and, if it had been, why it was not placed on record. Expressing dissatisfaction with the handling of the case, the Bench observed, “Despite serious allegations against senior police officials, the State’s conduct in delaying the registration of an FIR raises concerns about fairness in the investigation. The duty of the police is to act promptly and without bias, and any failure to do so undermines the rule of law.”
The Court also took note of the fact that instead of acting on the petitioner’s complaint, the police chose to register an affray case against unidentified individuals based on a third-party complaint. It remarked that such conduct, particularly when allegations are against law enforcement officials, necessitates strict scrutiny to ensure accountability and uphold public confidence in the justice system.
Taking into account the gravity of the allegations and the delay in FIR registration, the Court granted the State two days to justify why the investigation should not be transferred to the CBI. The matter has been listed for further consideration on March 28.
Picture Source :
