Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 559 (JK)

Parweeza Begum v. Union Of India

2011-10-22

Mansoor Ahmad Mir

body2011
1. Writ petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court for registration of FIR; to conduct investigation; for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10.00 lacs and to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. It is averred in the writ petition that the sole bread earner of the family of the writ petitioner namely Mohammad Sadiq Kasana was arrested and killed during custody by SOG personnel who were stationed at Ganderbal and Commandant Somdat of 119 Bn of CRPF. 3. The petitioner approached the police concerned for lodging FIR against the crime but the police concerned refused to register it, constraining the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this court by the medium of a writ petition which was allowed with the command to the respondents to lodge FIR and accordingly FIR was lodged and investigation conducted. 4. After investigation, the police came to the conclusion that Jagtar Singh and Hakim Din had arrested the deceased and killed him during custody. It is averred that the said investigation is defective because the Investigating Officer has tried to shield the SOG personnel especially Somdat Commandant CRPF 119 Bn. 5. The petitioners have lost their sole bread earner and have been brought on streets. 6. Respondents 2, 4, 5 and 7 have filed reply and they have admitted that FIR No. 107/2002 was registered in terms of the orders of this court and during investigation it was established that Mohammad Sadiq Kasana was arrested and on the next day his dead body was handed over to his relatives and during investigation it was also established that Hakim Din SPO, and Jagtar Singh, Dy. S.P. the then, Incharge SOG Ganderbal were involved in the death of the deceased. The case was closed as untraced due to the death of the said officers and final report was made in the shape of Ikhtitami Final Report No. 14 dated 30th of April, 2007. They have denied that besides the above two persons there were other SOG personnel also involved in the matter. That the investigation was taken to its logical end and the same is not defective in any way. 7. Respondents-Union of India have filed their reply. They have specifically averred that neither any official nor any constable of CRPF 119 Bn. They have denied that besides the above two persons there were other SOG personnel also involved in the matter. That the investigation was taken to its logical end and the same is not defective in any way. 7. Respondents-Union of India have filed their reply. They have specifically averred that neither any official nor any constable of CRPF 119 Bn. was involved in the custodial death of Mohammad Sadiq Kasana. 8. Admittedly in terms of the report of Investigating Officer, respondents have admitted that investigation was conducted and it was established during such investigation that two Police Officers, Jagtar Singh and Hakim Din were involved in the death of the deceased and thus have deprived the sole bread earner to the writ petitioner and his family. This not only has affected their life but has made them very vulnerable to other social evils. 9. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to award Rs. 3.00 lacs as compensation and saddle the State Govt. with the liability. I am conscious it is a very meager amount; therefore, it is made clear that this award shall not come in the way of the writ petitioner or the other aggrieved persons, if any, for seeking just and appropriate compensation while invoking the appropriate remedy. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I also direct the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner No. 1 for compassionate appointment in terms of the provisions of SRO 43 provided the petitioner is eligible. However, the age factor shall not come in the way of the respondents and the same be considered for relaxation while keeping in view the fact that writ petitioner is before this court right from 9th of March, 2000. 11. The amount of compensation so awarded shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date the copy of the order is served upon them. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.