Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 625 (PNJ)

Gurmej Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2001-05-30

K.S.KUMARAN

body2001
JudgmentJudgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. Petitioner-Gurmej Kaur lodged a report with Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Moga (Annexure P-1) mainly alleging as follows :- 2. Petitioners husband Baljinder Singh was a servant with Hardyal Singh for the last seven years. Hardyal Singh went abroad leaving the responsibility of the house and the fields to Baljinder Singh. Amar Singh (brother-in-law of Hardyal Singh) had come with his family to the house of Hardyal Singh but, he was not happy with confidence deposited by Hardyal Singh on Baljinder Singh. 3. On 29.12.1996, Amar Singh sent a message through his son Sarbjit Singh that Baljinder Singh should go with them along with tractor-trolley to the house of Nirmal Singh at Moga. 4. On the same day at about 7 p.m. Amar Singh and his son Sarbjit Singh came and took the petitioner and her father-in-law to Civil Hospital, Moga, where they found Baljinder Singh dead. On the way to the Hospital, they said that Baljinder Singh had some minor injury by failing down by the tractor-trolley. The petitioners father-in-law heard Dr. Mohinder Pal demanding Rs. 30,000/- from Amar Singh and telling him that otherwise he will not write accident as the cause of death. Amar Singh and Nirmal Singh came back with the money and paid it to the Doctor. 5. On 30.12.1996 Surjit Singh and Baljinder Singh came to the residence of the petitioner and told her and her father-in-law that on 29.12.1996 they had seen a person catching hold of another by his hairs while the second was holding his legs and the third was holding his arms, whereas, the fourth one, who was old in age beating the man with iron rod. He also told that the person who was injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Moga from where they verified that the person who had died was Baljinder Singh. These two witnesses identified Amar Singh and Sarabjit Singh. 6. Pointing out these factors, the petitioner had requested the SHO to register a case against Amar Singh, Sarabjit Singh, Jaswant Singh and Nirmal Singh. The petitioner also claims that she had made a representation to the S.S.P. Moga, also mentioning all these facts. The petitioner claims that the death of Baljinder Singh was not due to any accident but it is a case of murder whereas it has been recorded as if it is a case of accidental death. The petitioner also claims that she had made a representation to the S.S.P. Moga, also mentioning all these facts. The petitioner claims that the death of Baljinder Singh was not due to any accident but it is a case of murder whereas it has been recorded as if it is a case of accidental death. Petitioner claims no FIR has been registered on her statement. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court with this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for directing the S.H.O. Police Station, Moga, to register the FIR and take further action. 7. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Harcharan Singh, D.S.P. Rural, Moga, alleging as follows :- 8. Enquiry was conducted by the police on application No. 337-PC 2/97 dated 16.5.1997 and the facts mentioned therein were found to be false. From the enquiry report and the panchayatnama, which has been signed by the father/brother of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased died due to fall from the tractor. Baljinder Singh fell down on the metalled road from the running tractor and died as a result of the injuries. When Baljinder Singh met with the accident, he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Moga, where he expired due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The fact that he died due to accident has been found to be correct on enquiry. The letter dated 1.4.1997 was received by the S.H.O. and on an enquiry the contents of the letter were found to be false. 9. D.D.R. No. 20 dated 30.12.1996 was recorded by S.H.O. Tehal Singh on the statement of Sarabjit Singh who was travelling in the same tractor with Baljinder Singh. The FIR could not be recorded as no cognizable offence was alleged was made out. 10. The petitioner filed rejoinder reiterating her case. 11. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 12. The fact that the petitioner had lodged the report (Annexure P-1) with the S.H.O. and had made a representation Annexure P-3 to the S.S.P. are admitted by the respondents. 10. The petitioner filed rejoinder reiterating her case. 11. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 12. The fact that the petitioner had lodged the report (Annexure P-1) with the S.H.O. and had made a representation Annexure P-3 to the S.S.P. are admitted by the respondents. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Section 154 Cr.P.C. ordains that the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given to an officer Incharge of Police Station shall be reduced to writing and that the substance thereof shall be entered in a book kept by such officer in such form as may be prescribed by the State. A reading of Annexures P-1 and P-3 shows that the petitioner has specifically stated that her husband has been murdered. Therefore, when the petitioner had given this information regarding a commission of a cognizable offence, the first duty of the S.H.O. is to register the F.I.R. and then investigate the case. Whereas, in the present the contention of the respondents is that on the statement of Sarbjit Singh, DDR No. 20 dated 30.12.1996 was recorded and no FIR was registered as no cognizable offence was made out, since on enquiry they found the case of the petitioner to be false. Such a contention cannot be accepted. When the allegations in the report Annexure P-1 shows prima facie the commission of a cognizable offence, the police cannot be heard to say that they have enquired into matter and found it to be false and, therefore, the FIR was not registered. This is against the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this petition has to be allowed directing the second-respondent to register the FIR and then take further proceedings in accordance with law. 13. Resultantly the petition is allowed. The second-respondent namely, the concerned S.H.O. is directed to register the FIR on the basis of Annexure P-1 and then proceed with the same in accordance with law.