Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 3 (PNJ)

Capt. Gulzar Singh v. State Of Punjab

2011-01-03

S.S.SARON

body2011
Judgment S.S.SARON, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for directing respondents to conduct a fair investigation and to take appropriate action against the accused in the cross-case registered under Sections 302, 452, 148 and 149 IPC; besides, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for the murder of Ravinder Singh son of the petitioner Capt. Gulzar Singh. 2. FIR No.299 dated 24.12.2008 stands registered at Police Station Ajnala for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 341, 148 and 149 IPC; besides, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The said FIR No.299 has been registered on the complaint of Harinder Singh son of Kehar Singh. It is alleged by the said complainant Harinder Singh son of Kehar Singh that he was returning from his fields to his house and when he reached near the Haveli of Captain Gulzar Singh (petitioner), the petitioner was armed with a 12 bore double barrel gun while his son Harinder Singh @ Ninder and Harjinder Singh @ Bau were also armed with .12 bore double barrel guns each. The other accused namely Harpal Singh, Mangal Singh and Kanwaljit Singh were armed with dangs each. Besides, Sukhjinder Singh and Jagjit Singh @ Jagga were armed with gandasis each. Harpal Singh raised a lalkara that Harinder Singh (complainant) be taught a lesson for digging out earth from their lands. Then the fight ensued. 3. In the said case FIR No.299 dated 24.12.2008, the cross case was registered on the complaint of Ravinder Singh (who died in the incident and is the son of the petitioner Capt. Gulzar Singh). The grievance of the petitioner is that his son Ravinder Singh had died in the incident that had occurred and yet the police has not investigated the case. 4. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Ranbir Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Ajnala, District Amritsar (Rural) has been filed in which it is stated that detailed investigations were conducted in the cross case by the Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Majitha, District Amritsar and during investigation, three persons namely Davinder Singh, Gurinder Singh, and Kuldip Singh were found innocent. Ranbir Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Ajnala, District Amritsar (Rural) has been filed in which it is stated that detailed investigations were conducted in the cross case by the Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Majitha, District Amritsar and during investigation, three persons namely Davinder Singh, Gurinder Singh, and Kuldip Singh were found innocent. Thereafter, further investigations were conducted by the deponent Ranbir Singh, PPS, DSP, Sub-Division Ajnala, District Amritsar (Rural) and during inquiry, the allegations levelled by Ravinder Singh (complainant) against Gurmit Singh son of Balwant Singh, Gagandeep Singh son of Amrik Singh, Harinder Singh son of Kehar Singh were not found to be correct. The same were found to be false and frivolous. It was not established that Ravinder Singh was murdered by the above-mentioned persons and accordingly in the cross case an untraced report vide case diary No.22 dated 28.9.2009 was recorded. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is not aware of the untraced report. 6. Learned State counsel has submitted that ASI Lakhbir Singh, Police Station Ajnala on 27.9.2010 had submitted that a cancellation report has been filed. However, both the counsel are unaware of the outcome of the cancellation report. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unaware whether any protest petition has been filed and if so, its results. 8. In the circumstances, the petitioner may pursue his remedy before the concerned Court itself where the cancellation report has been filed and if any order has been passed against him, he would have his remedies against the same in accordance with law. 9. Keeping in view the fact that a cancellation report has been filed, the petitioner may avail his alternative remedy and no directions are liable to be passed at this stage in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed.