Gurmit Singh vs State of Punjab

J.B. Garg, J.

Jagtar Singh of Labh Singh resident of village Nohra, was alleged to have caused Gandasa injury to Jagtar Singh on 1.10.1990. The injured was admitted to Primary Health Centre, Bhadson, and a case was registered and investigated for the offences under section 452/324/336 of the Indian Penal Code. Challan has been presented against the aforesaid Jagtar Singh and evidence is also being recorded in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Nabha.

Jagtar Singh had been approaching the Superintendent of Police, Patiala, that he was not at all the assailant. This version was investigated by Shri Anand Kumar Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nabha and also by Shri Ishwar Chand Sharma, another Deputy Superintendent of Police of the aforesaid district and it appears that after own satisfaction of the Superintendent of Police, Patiala, it has been proposed to prosecute Gurmeet Singh, Assistant SubInspector of Police, under section 120B/167/218 of the Indian Penal Code.

Gurmeet Singh, A.S.I. has not moved the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has challenged the FIR bearing No. 25 dated 23.3.1991, registered at Police Station Bhadson.

On behalf of the petitioner, it has been argued that the two Deputy Superintendents of Police, have held the investigation behind the back of the present petitioner and it is on account of some political influence which weighed on the police officers and that the requirement of the Punjab Police Rules, has not been adhered to. Subrules (1) and (2) of Rule 16.38 are reproduced as under :

"16.38.(1) Immediate information shall be given to the District Magistrate of any complaint received by the Superintendent of police, which indicates the commission of a police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public. The District Magistrate will decide whether the investigation of the complaint shall be conducted by a police officer, or made over to a selected Magistrate Ist class powers.

(2) When investigation of such a complaint establishes a prima facia case, a judicial prosecution shall normally follow. The matter shall be disposed of departmentally only if the District Magistrate so orders for reasons to be recorded. When it is decided to proceed departmentally the procedure prescribed in rule 16.24 shaft be followed. An officer found guilty of a charge of the nature referred to in this rule shall ordinarily be dismissed."

On behalf of the petitioner it has been argued that it was the District Magistrate who was to decide whether the investigation of the complaint was to be conducted by a police officer or that it was to be made over to a selected Magistrate having I class powers. However, it is apparent that this requirement was not fulfilled as is evident from reply filed by the respondents to para No. 8 of the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Raj Kumar v. The State of Punjab, 1976(1) S.L.R. 5, (F.B.), wherein it has been held that the provisions of Rule 16.38 required its implementation. It has been observed that the object of rule 16.38 appears to be protect public rights from being trampled upon by police officers investigating into offences alleged to have been committed by their own subordinates and also to protect such subordinates against prejudices from which their superiors might suffer in relation to them. Any authority to the contrary has not been referred to here on behalf of the State of Punjab. The conclusion is that the present petition succeeds and the impugned proceedings are quashed and it is held that there is no bar for the Department to launch fresh proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16.38.