Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. A letter dated 12.4.1995 sent by the petitioner to the Honble Supreme Court was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India (Writ Petition Criminal No. 582 of 1995) and the same was disposed of vide order dated 1.12.1995 by passing the following order :- "It is appropriate that this matter under Article 226 of the Constitution be transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh for being heard and decided in accordance with law. We direct accordingly." 2. Thereupon the matter was registered as C.W.P. No. 168 of 1996 by this Court and notice was issued to the State. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued, reply was filed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, in which it was alleged that the deceased Satnam Singh alias Satta was a terrorist and more than seven cases were registered and pending against him. It was further stated that deceased Satnam Singh was not arrested on 8.8.1988 by Sirhind police as alleged, but in fact he was killed in encounter on 9.8.1988 on the G.T. Road near Village Madhopur, and in this regard an FIR No. 75, dated 9.8.1988 under Sections 307/34 IPC, 25 Arms Act & 3/4 TADA (P) was registered at Police Station, Sirhind. After conducting the post-mortem examination, dead-body of Satnam Singh was handed over to his father Prem Singh (petitioner). At that time neither Prem Singh nor any resident of his village raised any objection about the death of Satnam Singh. 4. On September 19, 1996, this Court after hearing counsel for the parties and considering the reply filed by the State directed the senior-most Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib to make an inquiry into the allegations contained in the complaint along with the annexures thereto and the reply filed by the opposite party, and to submit his reported within a period of six months. In compliance of the said order, Shri L.R. Rozam, Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib held an inquiry, in which he came to the following conclusion:- "In view of the foregoing discussion, it is concluded that Satnam Singh was killed on 9.8.1988 in encounter that took place on G.T. road in which on one side the police while on the other side Satnam Singh and others participated but that was not a fake encounter." 5. Thereafter on April 24, 2001, the matter was again argued and after hearing both the parties, this Court again remanded the matter to the District and Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib for further inquiry. The District and Sessions Judge was directed to give a positive finding as to whether or not Satnam Singh @ Satta died due to having been shot at from a close range. In compliance of the said direction, District and Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib submitted his report dated 5.8.2002, in which he found as under :- "It is evident from the Post Mortem Report duly proved on record that there were two tears on the right side of the chest and there was blackening around those tears and two tears of right side shirt beside other injuries. Injuries No. 1 and 2 appearing on the person of the deceased suggest that there was blackening and tattooing of the surrounding skin. Further report suggests that the track goes backward. Underlying muscles are lacerated and blackened. Aforesaid track comes out through injury No. 3 after crushing the muscles of back of chest. Blackening or lacerated wound appearing on right sides of front of chest are possible only if the shot is fired from a close range. Factum of shot by close range is also claimed by Surjit Kaur mother of the deceased who as per her testimony was present at the time of fake encounter by the police. Whether Surjit Kaur mother of the deceased was present at the time when the shot is fired from a close range is a moot point to be seen at later stage as she remained silent for all these years. However, it is a matter of fact that if the shot is fired from a very close range sub-cutaneous tissues over an area of two or three inches round the wound of entrance are lacerated and the surrounding skin is usually scorched and blackened, which is the position, in the present case and it is specifically mentioned by the doctor in his Post Mortem Report as well as in his statement on oath that there was blackening and tattooing of the surrounding skin. Thus, as per the circumstances available on the record, I conclude that the deceased Satnam Singh had died with a shot which was fired from a very close range". 6. Thus, as per the circumstances available on the record, I conclude that the deceased Satnam Singh had died with a shot which was fired from a very close range". 6. After receiving the aforesaid two reports, this Court directed that notice of this petition be sent to all persons, who as per the contents of FIR No. 75, dated 9.8.1988 took part in operation, in which deceased Satnam Singh was killed. Thereupon some of the police officials who were present in the said encounter filed reply in the shape of objections. 7. Shri Navkiran Singh, Advocate, who was appointed as amicus curie in this case, has made two-fold submissions. He submits that from the perusal of the aforesaid two inquiry reports submitted by two superior judicial officers, prima facie, it is clear that the deceased Satnam Singh was killed by a gun/pistol shot which was fired from a very close range. This fact has been established from the post-mortem report as well as the second inquiry conducted by District and Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. He submits that the stand taken by the police in the said FIR is not being supported by medical evidence as well as the report submitted by the Sessions Judge, Fatehgqarh Sahib. In the FIR, it has not been stated that the police fired on the deceased from a very close range, therefore, prima facie, it is case which should be investigated after registration of the case. Secondly, the learned counsel submits that since price facie by two inquiry reports, it is apparent that the son of the petitions was killed in a fake encounter, therefore, the State be directed to give reasonable interim compensation to the petitioner. 8. Counsel for the respondent submits that the deceased was a terrorist and was killed in encounter by the police and against him there were several cases pending at that time. Learned counsel submits that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1988 and for seven years no body raised any grouse. After the post-mortem, dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased and at that time he did not raise any objection but after seven years of the alleged occurrence, a letter was sent to the Honble Apex Court alleging that the son of the petitioner was illegally killed by the police in fake encounter. After the post-mortem, dead body was handed over to the father of the deceased and at that time he did not raise any objection but after seven years of the alleged occurrence, a letter was sent to the Honble Apex Court alleging that the son of the petitioner was illegally killed by the police in fake encounter. Learned counsel further submits that after seven years such petition should not have been entertained. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 224 of 1999 titled as Sardul Singh v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 24.3.2004. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that since the deceased was a terrorist and killed in encounter, therefore, the petitioner who is his father is not entitled for any compensation on account of death of his son, who was a terrorist. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the two reports submitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, District & Sessions Judge, post-mortem report and FIR No. 75, dated 9.8.1988, without giving the detail reasons, as the same will prejudice the case of either of the parties, I deem it a fit case where the allegations should be investigated by the police. The allegations of the petitioner for killing his son in fake encounter are to be investigated after registration of a case for the alleged offence. In these circumstances, I direct the Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib to register a criminal case for the alleged offence and to hand over the investigation of the said case to the officer not below the rank of IPS Officer. Since the matter pertains to the year 1988, the investigation should be completed expeditiously. 10. Since the unmarried son of the petitioner was killed in an encounter, which is alleged to be fake one, I am of the opinion that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Nilabati @ Lalita Behra v. State of Orissa reported as 1994(1) Recent Criminal Reports 18 and the decision rendered by this Court in Crl. W.P. No. 3342 of 1989 titled as Tarlochan Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) RCR 752 decided on 5.7.1996, State is liable to pay some interim compensation to the petitioner on account of his vicarious liability. W.P. No. 3342 of 1989 titled as Tarlochan Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) RCR 752 decided on 5.7.1996, State is liable to pay some interim compensation to the petitioner on account of his vicarious liability. In this regard, I am of the opinion that at present the State should pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as interim compensation to the petitioner, subject to adjustment towards amount of compensation to be awarded in any other proceedings in this regard. Accordingly, the State is directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as interim compensation to the petitioner within a period of three months. However, it is made clear that it will be open for the State of Punjab to recover the said amount of compensation from the guilty police officials. In the aforesaid terms, the petition is disposed of. October 20, 2005 11. Vide order dated 13th July, 2005 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 168 of 1996, a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been awarded to the petitioner Prem Singh, father of deceased Satnam Singh, on account of vicarious liability of the State. Subsequently, an application was filed by the counsel, who was appointed amicus curaie, in this case, that the aforesaid Prem Singh is not traceable and mother of the deceased namely Surjit Kaur, his wife Baljit Kaur and two sons namely Gurpreet Singh and Sukhwant Singh, aged 19 years and 17 years respectively, are the legal heirs of deceased and they are residing in village Shallu Bhanian, District Ludhiana. In the application, a prayer has been made that the aforesaid order dated July 13, 2005 be modified to the extent that the aforesaid amount of compensation be disbursed to all the aforesaid four legal heirs of the deceased. On the said application, notice was issued to the State counsel, for verification of facts. 12. Now two different affidavits i.e. one by Varinder Kumar, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib and second by Pritpal Singh Thind, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib, have been filed by the State. On the said application, notice was issued to the State counsel, for verification of facts. 12. Now two different affidavits i.e. one by Varinder Kumar, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib and second by Pritpal Singh Thind, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib, have been filed by the State. According to their verification, Surjit Kaur, wife of the petitioner Prem Singh and mother of deceased, who is residing at village Mahaddian, District Fatehgarh Sahib and Baljit Kaur widow of the deceased along with her two sons namely Gurpreet Singh and Sukhwant Singh, now aged 19 years and 17 years respectively, who is residing at village Shallu Bhaini, P.S. Kum Kalan, District Ludhiana, are the only legal heirs of deceased Satnam Singh. 13. In view of the above factual position and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the aforesaid order dated 13.7.2005 is modified to the extent that, the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- will be disbursed to the aforesaid four legal of deceased Satnam Singh in equal shares. 14. So far as share of Sukhwant Singh minor is concerned, the same shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of two years and thereafter the same shall also be disbursed to him, as by that time, he will attain majority. 15. Since in the order dated 13.7.2005, it was directed by this Court to pay the amount of compensation within three months, now the said time is extended and it is directed that the amount of compensation shall be disbursed to all the aforesaid legal heirs, in terms of this order within three months from today.