Lakha Singh vs State of Punjab and ors.

K.S. Kumaran, J.

PetitionerLakha Singh lodged a complaint before the Police. Station Civil Lines, Amritsar on 18.7.1996 on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 117 of 1996 has been registered by the said Police Station under Sections 302, 158 and 149 I.P.C. As per the allegations in the said complaint, on 17.7.1996 at about 11 p.m., when the petitioner, alongwith his family members, was chatting on the roof of his house, his brother Kashmir Singh and one Paramjit Singh were caused injuries with Kirpan as a result of which the above said Kashmir Singh and Paramjit Singh died. The petitioner has also given names of the assailants as Dilbag Singh, Bhola Singh, Devinder Singh, Makhan Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Hardip Singh.

The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the transfer of the investigation of the abovesaid F.I.R. to some other independent agency such as Central Bureau of Investigation or the State Vigilance Bureau alleging that the third respondentGurbachan Singh who is the Station House Officer of Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar has twisted the facts of the case in such a way as if the petitioner and his wife had not witnessed the occurrence and also changing the part attributed to the accused, in order to help the accused. The petitioner also claims that he was not furnished with a copy of the F.I.R., that the Special Report was intentionally sent after a delay to the concerned Magistrate on 19.7.1996, that the petitioner approached the second respondentNarinder Pal Singh (Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar) and the third respondent and informed them that the version given in the F.I.R. is not the actual version as reported by the petitioner, but neither respondents 2 and 3 nor the higher authorities to whom the telegrams were given, listened to his grievance. The petitioner has further alleged that the second respondent is a relation of Devinder Singh accused and for the very same reason, the third respondent being a subordinate of the second respondent, is not investigating the case properly. According to the petitioner, the accused Bhola Singh, Devinder Singh and Hardip Singh have not been arrested, but are moving freely and that he (petitioner) apprehends danger at the hands of the accused as well as respondents 2 and 3.

The petitioner also states that he has given a complaint before the C.J.M., Amritsar with regard to this occurrence.

The second respondent, on the other hand, denies the alleged relationship with accusedDevinder Singh, and that he is helping the accused.

According to him, the investigation is being done in a fair and proper manner. He has also urged that the accused Bhola Singh, Devinder Singh and Hardip Singh were arrested on 5.8.1996 but were discharged by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar by his order dated 11.9.1996.

Similarly, the third respondent has denied that the facts have been twisted in this case. According to him, the first information report has been recorded truly on the basis of the version given by the petitioner and he was also furnished a copy of the same free of cost. He has also denied that the Special Report was intentionally sent after a delay to the concerned Magistrate. According to him, the investigation conducted by him did not prove the alleged offence against Devinder Singh and Bhola Singh and that they were discharged by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. He has also alleged that the investigation is in progress and is being carried on in a free, fair and impartial manner.

I have heard counsel for both the sides. The question is whether there are any grounds for directing the C.B.I. or the State Vigilance Bureau to take over the investigation of the above said F.I.R. from the third respondent.

The allegation of the petitioner is that the facts of the case as reported by him have been twisted by the third respondent while recording the F.I.R. He has also alleged that the part played by the accused has also been changed, and that the accused were not arrested. But the respondents deny that the facts given in the F.I.R are twisted ones or that even the accused were not arrested. According to them accused Bhola Singh and Devinder Singh and Hardip Singh were arrested on 5.8.1996, but the first two were discharged by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar since according to them, the investigation did not show their involvement. Of course, annexure P6 shows that at the request of the Police, Bhola Singh and Devinder Singh were discharged since according to the police, they were found to be innocent on investigation. The other accusedKuldip Singh, Dilbag Singh, Makhan Singh and Hardip Singh were released on bail under Section 167(2) as the chargesheet had not been presented. Relying upon these circumstances, the petitioner wants the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent agency to take over the investigation of the case. But admittedly, the petitioner has given a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar (annexure P5) wherein also, the same accused have been shown to be the culprits. This complaint has been given by the petitioner on 19.7.1996 itself. In the circumstances, I feel that it is not necessary to hand over investigation of the case to any other agency. Section 210 Cr.P.C. provides that in such circumstances where there is a complaint case and a Police Investigation in respect of the same offence, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of the enquiry or trial and call for a report from the police officer conducting the investigation. If a chargesheet is filed and cognizance of this offence is taken on the basis of such report, the Magistrate will proceed to enquire into or try together the complaint case as well as the case arising from the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. Subsection (3) of Section 210 provides that if the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, then the Magistrate shall have to proceed with the enquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, there is already a private complaint lodged by petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and the said Magistrate will have to act according to Section 210 Cr.P.C.

The allegation made by the petitioner that the second respondent is related to one of the accused, is denied by the second respondent. The alleged twisting of the case and changing the role of the accused is also not admitted by them. It may be that some of the accused were discharged and some of them were let off on bail for not filing the chargesheet in time, but in these circumstances it cannot be said that the investigation is not proper or that the investigation must be handed over to some other agency. Since the Magistrate concerned can act under Section 210 Cr.P.C. on the complaint given by the petitioner himself, I am of the view that there is no reason to hand over the investigation to some other agency.

Accordingly, this petition fails and is dismissed.