Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 909 (PNJ)

Shiv Kumar alias Shambu v. State of Punjab

2012-07-13

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Shiv Kumar alias Shambu, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions to respondents No. 2 to 4 to register a case against Vishwanath, respondent No.5, for having caused injuries to the petitioner and further directions to respondents to get the matter investigated either by a senior officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or some independent investigating agency simultaneously with the investigation of FIR No. 85 dated 19.10.2011 registered at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib for an offence punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 341 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 2. FIR No. 85 is registered on the complaint of Vishwanath alias Sony, respondent No. 5, who has alleged that the petitioner, Shiv Kumar alias Shambu alongwith Davinder Kumar, Jugal Kishore and others intercepted his car only 50 yards away from his house while he was on the way to the school of his child and was assaulted with iron rods, hockey sticks and other sticks by them. 3. The prayer of the petitioner is two-fold. First of all, he wants a cross-case to be registered to the case registered by way of FIR No. 85 on the allegations that respondent No. 5 has caused injuries to him and secondly, he wants the investigation to be entrusted to a senior police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or to some independent investigating agency. 4. It can be stated here itself that the case on the cross-version of the petitioner already stands registered as stated by learned State counsel. It is a fact not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners. So, now the question remains as to whether there are circumstances under which the petitioner can claim transfer of the investigation of the case registered by way of FIR No. 85. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case had been registered at Police Station, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib and investigation of this case has been deliberately transferred to District Patiala. According to him, respondent no. 5 has clout over the police officials at Patiala district on account of his connection with a politician there. To support his submission in this regard, he drew my attention to an order of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India passed in a case titled Vishwa Nath Vs. According to him, respondent no. 5 has clout over the police officials at Patiala district on account of his connection with a politician there. To support his submission in this regard, he drew my attention to an order of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India passed in a case titled Vishwa Nath Vs. State of Punjab, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4818 of 2010, dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P4). He drew my attention in this decision to the following paragraph :- “ Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that even though a period of more than seven months has elapsed from the date of registration of the first information report, the petitioner is still at large. Therefore, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala is directed to ensure that steps necessary for arresting the petitioner are taken without any delay. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range is also directed to look into the Report dated 19.0.2010 prepared by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Rajpura, which prima facie appears to be an attempt to bail out the petitioner.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the investigation of this case has been transferred to Patiala and the petitioner apprehends that he will not get justice there because respondent No. 5 has influence over the police there. He has submitted that without there being any good reason, the investigation of this case was transferred to district Patiala and it itself shows that the investigation was transferred to district Patiala in order to help respondent No. 5. He has submitted that the investigation of this case may be transferred to any other district and he would not have objection to the same. 7. Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that an application had been made to Director General of Police, Punjab for transfer of investigation of this case. According to her, the reason for transferring the investigation to district Patiala is however, not available with her. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has submitted that there are two cases against Vishwa Nath at Patiala. According to him, there was no special reason for transferring the investigation to Patiala. He has submitted that from Fatehgarh Sahib, the petitioner also prayed for transfer of the case. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has submitted that there are two cases against Vishwa Nath at Patiala. According to him, there was no special reason for transferring the investigation to Patiala. He has submitted that from Fatehgarh Sahib, the petitioner also prayed for transfer of the case. He has further submitted that the petitioner has got relations with an MLA at Fatehgarh Sahib and, therefore, he wants the investigation to be conducted at Fatehgarh Sahib. 9. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent no. 5 that the petitioner has got relations with a politician at Fatehgarh Sahib and that he himself prayed for transfer of the investigation from Fatehgarh Sahib are contradictory to each other. Had the petitioner some connections with a politician i.e. MLA at Fatehgarh Sahib, as is argued by learned counsel for respondent No.5, he would have never applied for transfer of the investigation from Fatehgarh Sahib as is claimed by him. Nothing has come on the record as to who is that MLA with whom the petitioner has contacts. It is also not clear on record as to when the petitioner made application for transfer of the investigation from Fatehgarh Sahib. The investigation clearly appears to have been transferred to district Patiala on the request of respondent No. 5 and as is evident from the above quoted paragraph from the orders of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P4), the police at district Patiala had tried to help respondent No. 5 in the earlier case. In these circumstances, the petitioner can be held justified in having apprehension that the investigation would not be fair if conducted by the police of district Patiala. 10. Therefore, allowing the petition, I order the investigation of the case bearing FIR No. 85 dated 19.10.2011 registered at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib for an offence punishable under sections 148, 307, 323, 341 read with section 149 IPC and the case registered on the complaint of the petitioner to be transferred to district Sangrur and direct Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur to entrust the investigation of this case to a senior officer and to personally supervise the investigation conducted by him. ---------0.B.S.0------------