Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 322 (ALL)

Brij Lal Verma v. S. P. , C. B. I. ,

2001-04-09

MARKANDEY KATJU, ONKARESHWAR BHATT

body2001
M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is presently posted as S. O. police station Pachokhara district Firozabad. The incident in question occurred on 12/13-10-1993 when a Sikh person Harjeet Singh was killed in a police encounter by a police party and an F. I. . R was lodged on 13-10-1993 being case crime No. 327 of 1993 at police station Puwayan, district Shahjahanpur. It is alleged in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that after investigtion the police submitted a final report before the Magistrate concerned and the same was accepted on 29-5-1995 vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition. ( 3 ) IT appears that a writ petition was filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the father of deceased Harjeet Singh asserting that his son had been picked up by the Punjab police which handed him over to the U. P. police and thereafter he was killed in Shahjahanpur in U. P. in a false encounter. True copy of the judgment of the Punjab High Court dated 27-5-1998 is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The Punjab High Court directed an investigation by the C. B. I. to enquire and investigate the circumstances leading to the killing of Harjeet Singh and to submit a report before the High Court within a period of six months. The States of Punjab and Uttar Pradesh were also directed to render all necessary assistance in the investigation. Thereafter on 1-8-1998 an F. I. R. was lodged copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The petitioners name was not in the F. I. . R. but he was asked to appear before the C. B. I. Admittedly the petitioner was one of the police party which is said to have killed Harjeet Singh in Shahjanpur vide paragraph 12 of the petition. The petitioner was asked to appear before the C. B. I. for a lie detection test but he refused alleging that his statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. had already been recorded. True copy of the letter of the petitioner dated 1-3-2000 is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. ( 4 ) THE Special Judicial Magistrate, C. B. I. , Patiyala issued a notice dated 14-5-2000 to the petitioner to appear on 25-5-2000. P. C. had already been recorded. True copy of the letter of the petitioner dated 1-3-2000 is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. ( 4 ) THE Special Judicial Magistrate, C. B. I. , Patiyala issued a notice dated 14-5-2000 to the petitioner to appear on 25-5-2000. However, the petitioner did not appear in that Court and hence bailable warrant was issued on 24-8-2000 against him directing the C. B. I. authorities to arrest him and produce him on 14-9-2000. The petitioner, appeared before the Court of the Spl. Judicial Magistrate, Patiyala on 14-9-2000 and the case was adjourned to 20-9-2000 vide Annexure 11 to the writ petition. On 20-9-2000 an application was submitted by the C. B. I. for directing the petitioner to give his handwriting/ signature. However, the same was dismissed vide Annexure 12. On 29-1-2001 the S. P: , C. B. I. wrote a letter of the S. P. Firozabad requesting him to direct the petitoner to attend the C. B. I. office at Chandigarh on 8-2-2001 for the purpose of investigation vide Annexure 13. However, the petitioner did not appear alleging that he was afraid of being killed by encounter by terrorists. On 19-3-2001 a wireless message was received in the office of the S. P. , Firozabad to instruct the petitioner to appear in the C. B. I. office on any working dayin the last week of March, 2001 vide Annexure 15 to the petition. Since the petitioner did not appear a warrant of arrest has been issued by Spl. Judicial Magistrate, C. B. I. , Patiyala with a direction to produce the petitioner on 30-3-2001 as he was charged for offences under Section 120b read with Sections 364, and 302, I. P. C. True copy of the warrant of arrest is Annexure 16 to the writ petition. ( 5 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 25 of the petition that the entire proceeding drawn by the C. B. I. at Chandigarh is without jurisdiction as no part of the offence has been committed within the State of Punjab and Haryana as admittedly the alleged encounter took place in district Shahjahanpur in U. P. It is further alleged that the Punjab High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition No. 1118 of 1996 as no part of the cause of action arose in the State of Punjab. ( 6 ) WE are not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The allegations regarding the killing of Harjeet Singh are that he was dragged from his house in his native village in Punjab and brought to district Shahjahanpur in U. P. where he was killed in the alleged encounter. Since the allegations are that Harjeet Singh was caught in Punjab and forcibly brought to Shahjahanpur where he was killed in our opinion part of the cause of offence certainly arose in Punjab State. Had Harjeet Singh not been caught in Punjab he could obviously not have been brought to Shahjahanpur and killed there. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra 2000 (7) SCC 640 : ( AIR 2000 SC 2966 ). In our opinion this decision does not help the petitioner. This decision itself says that the High Court will have jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arises within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. Since admittedly Harjeet Singh was caught and forcibly brought from Punjab, in our opinion part of the cause of action does arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab High Court. Moreover this decision of the Punjab Court does not seem to have been challenged in the Supreme Court and hence it is not open to the petitioner to challenge that decision in a collateral proceeding. In our opinion, the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, C. B. I. Patiyala certainly has jurisdiction in the matter as part of the cause of action admittedly arose in Punjab. ( 8 ) HENCE we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Art. 226 in this case. Moreover writ jurisdcition is discretionary jurisdiction and this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction in such matter where there is allegation of gross violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution. ( 9 ) WE are pained to say that the police in this country is often behaving in an illegal manner. While not commenting on the facts of the present case we would certainly like to say that often innocent persons are murdered by the police in the name of encounter. These so called encounters are nothing but murder by the police , and the police have no right to commit murder. While not commenting on the facts of the present case we would certainly like to say that often innocent persons are murdered by the police in the name of encounter. These so called encounters are nothing but murder by the police , and the police have no right to commit murder. A large number of cases have been coming to this Court where the allegations are that the police persons are indulged in committing dacoity, theft, forcible extraction of money (vasuli), rape, black-mail and even murder in the name of false encounters. ( 10 ) IF crimes are committed by ordinary people no doubt ordinary punishment should be given but if the offence is committed by the police persons much harsher punishment should be given to them, because they are doing an act contrary to their duties ( 11 ) THE police is supposed to protect the people and uphold the law, but if they themselves become criminals then that is the end of civilized society. As the Bible says "if the salt has lost its flavour, wherewith shall it be salted," or as the ancient Romans used to say "who will guard the Praetorian guards. " No doubt there are some good policemen in the police force but they appear to be in the minority. ( 12 ) WE are of the view that in cases where false encounter is found proved against police persons in a trial they must be given death sentence treating it as rarest of the rare cases. ( 13 ) WE also warn all police personnel in the country that they will not be excused for committing murder in the name of encounter on the pretext that they were carrying out orders of superior officers or politicians, however, high. In the Nuremberg Trials the Nazi war criminals took the defenceof orders are orders, nevertheless they were hanged. In our opinion if a policemen is given an illegal order by any superior to do an encounter it is his duty to refuse to carry out such illegal order, otherwise he will be charged for murder, and if found guilty sentenced to death. The encounter philosophy is a criminal philosophy, and all policemen must know this. Trigger happy policemen who think they can kill innocent people in the name of encounter and get away with it should know that the gallows await them. The encounter philosophy is a criminal philosophy, and all policemen must know this. Trigger happy policemen who think they can kill innocent people in the name of encounter and get away with it should know that the gallows await them. ( 14 ) THERE is no force in this petition. It is dismissed. ( 15 ) LET a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, U. P. forthwith and the Director General will send copy of this judgment to all I. Gs. D. I. G. s, S. S. Ps. and S. P. s in the State with the stern direction to comply with this judgment. Petition dismissed. . .