Amarjeet Singh Sandhu vs State of Punjab

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure to direct respondents 1 to 5 to register a case in regard to the death of sister of the petitioner on 18.5.1997.

According to the petitioner, his sister Sharanjit Kaur was married to one Baljinder Singh on 21.1.1996 and at the time of marriage gold ornaments and other gifts have been given to the family members of the husband of the petitioner''s sister. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, his sister was tortured and was treated cruelly demanding more money. It is further averred that on 11.5.1997, his sister came to Sirsa and told her family members that she was being tortured and she has been sent to her paternal home to bring a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. He further stated that on 13.5.1997 his brotherinlaw Baljinder Singh came to Sirsa and repeated the same demand. The petitioner further alleged that he gave a sum of Rs. 50,000/ to his brotherinlaw promising him to pay the rest of the amount shortly. Thereafter, on 18.5.1997, petitioner received a telephonic message that Sharanjit Kaur was serious. Therefore, he went to Damdama Sahib and came to know that his sister had died. He further averred that he approached the Police but no action has been taken on his complaint and no case has also been registered. He tried to contact the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, on 2.5.1997 but he was not available.

In reply to the petition, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Talwandi Saboo, filed an affidavit stating that on the basis of the information furnished to him he examined the witnesses and came to the conclusion that Sharanjit Kaur had committed suicide due to depression and since no cognizable offence is made out, the case was not registered.

After going through the reply, I am satisfied that no proper investigation has been done. When it is reported that the sister of the petitioner died within one year of the marriage under suspicious circumstances and when it is in the statement of the petitioner that there was demand for money and that she was illtreated, a presumption under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act could be drawn that the death was a dowry death. It does not appear from the reply filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that he recorded the statement of any of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No names of the persons who have been examined have been mentioned in the reply. A complete reading of the reply shows the callous manner in which the alleged enquiry was conducted. It is only a make believe story. I, therefore, direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda to register a case on the basis of Annexure P2 which the Deputy Superintendent of Police admitted to have been received in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda and entrust the investigation of the case to a Senior Police Officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police that too other than Darshan Singh Sandhu who filed the reply in this case.

Learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 8 contended that he has got a right to be heard. But in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sredpada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanadha Maharaj v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Other, 1999(3) RCR(Crl.) 587 : JT 1999(4) SC 537, before registering the case and taking up the investigation, the accused need not and has no right to be heard. It is pertinent to refer to paragraph 11 of the judgment of the Supreme Court which reads as follows :

"In such a situation the power of the Court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the Court would only result in encumbering the Court with burden of searching for all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard."

As per order of this Court dated 14.7.1999, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda namely Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Garg, appeared in the Court and gave his explanation on the subject. His explanation is accepted.