JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - An incident occurred in Ferozepur City on 01.12.2010. One Kulwant Singh made a statement before the police that he alongwith his son Inderjit Singh was standing at the gate of their house at 4.30 P.M. At that time three persons namely, Jitender Mohan alias Kuku, Charan Dass Handa and Surjit Singh alias Sita came there. They started hurling abuses at the complainant and his son. Jitender Mohan alias Kuku was armed with a revolver. As complainant protested, Charan Dass raised a Lalkara exhorting other accused to teach them a lesson. On this, Surjit Singh alias Sita pushed the complainant. Jitender Mohan alias Kuku fired two shots at the complainant, which hit his left bicep and right flank. After this, accused fled from the scene. Motive of the crime was stated to be certain property dispute. Jitender Mohan had purchased 36 Marlas of land out of 84 Marlas adjoining the house of complainant. However, they wanted to take possession of entire property. On this complaint, FIR under section 307/34 IPC and sections 25/27/54 of the Arms Act was registered. On 4.12.2010 complainant succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. Thus, offence under section 307 IPC was converted to Section 302 IPC. As the accused could not be apprehended by the investigating officer, proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated. On 28.4.2011, court directed the accused to be present before it on 7.5.2011. As the accused failed to appear, they were declared proclaimed offenders. In the instant petition, petitioners have sought quashing of FIR as well as orders Annexures P-7 and P-12 declaring them proclaimed offenders. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the various inquiries were conducted during the pendency of the case. The accused were found innocent. As a result, supplementary challan under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. was submitted before the court exonerating the petitioners. However, they are still shown to be proclaimed offenders. In view of the cancellation report, orders declaring them as proclaimed offenders deserve to be set-aside. 3. Learned State counsel has referred to reply filed by the State and made submissions on same lines. A perusal of the reply shows that during investigation of the case, an application regarding innocence of accused was submitted before Inspector General of Police Crime, Punjab. Said officer entrusted inquiry to Superintendent of Police (Detective), Moga who found the three accused innocent. Learned State counsel has referred to reply filed by the State and made submissions on same lines. A perusal of the reply shows that during investigation of the case, an application regarding innocence of accused was submitted before Inspector General of Police Crime, Punjab. Said officer entrusted inquiry to Superintendent of Police (Detective), Moga who found the three accused innocent. As a result, Additional Director General of Police, Crime, Punjab vide letter No.5466/CR-6 dated 11.03.2011, directed Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur to get the accused discharged from the case as they were innocent. Thereafter, Dr. Kaustubh Sharma, IPS, vide his DO letter dated 21.3.2011 wrote to Additional Director General of Police, Punjab that on receipt of information regarding the occurrence, he alongwith Superintendent of Police (Detective) and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur had visited the place of occurrence. On the spot interrogation was carried out by him. Several persons named the petitioners as responsible for the crime. He, thus, requested that inquiry report of Superintendent of Police (Detective), Moga be reconsidered. However, in response to the DO letter dated 21.3.2011 written by Dr. Kaustubh Sharma, then Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, he received a reply from Additional Director General of Police, Punjab that matter had been re-examined and approved by Director General of Police, Punjab. He may, however, carry out further investigation under his own supervision. Dr. Kaustubh Sharma thereafter constituted a Special Investigation Team under the supervision of Superintendent of Police (Detective), Ferozepur consisting of Incharge, CIA Staff, Ferozepur and SHO, Police Station Ferozepur City, Ferozepur to investigate the case and arrest the accused. As the accused kept on evading arrest, proceedings under section 82 was initiated. They were declared proclaimed offenders by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur on 7.5.2011. Challan was, thus, prepared on 13.6.2011 and submitted before the trial court on 21.6.2011. However, on 23.11.2011, a supplementary challan under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur showing all the three accused as innocent on the basis of inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police (Detective), Moga placing names of all accused in column No.2 of the final report. 4. However, on 23.11.2011, a supplementary challan under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur showing all the three accused as innocent on the basis of inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police (Detective), Moga placing names of all accused in column No.2 of the final report. 4. On due consideration of the matter, I find that it is one of those cases where police has tried to oust the jurisdiction of the trial court by repeated inquiries, recording statements of witnesses and itself coming to the conclusion that accused were innocent. It is on record that then Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur alongwith Superintendent of Police (Detective) and Dy. Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur visited the spot after the occurrence, when several persons named the petitioners as the ones responsible for the crime. In this background, Dr. Kaustubh Sharma requested the Additional Director General of Police to reconsider the report submitted by Superintendent of Police (Detective), Moga exonerating the accused. It is evident that in entire sequence of events, the police kept on entertaining various applications to conduct one inquiry after another. This is despite the fact that accused never associated with investigation of the case. There is nothing on record to show that any serious effort was made at any stage to arrest the accused, against whom there were charges under section 302 IPC and the Arms Act. It appears, a challan was ultimately submitted before the court on 21.6.2011. Surprisingly, thereafter a supplementary challan was submitted on 23.11.2011 showing all the accused as innocent. There is nothing to show that any permission was sought from the court to conduct further investigation in the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that there is no ground to quash the orders declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offenders. I am further of the view that investigation of the case has been scuttled due to inefficiency of the police, suo moto inquiries undertaken by it and undue interference by Superintendent of Police (Detective), Moga. It is inexplicable how after presentation of challan on 21.6.2011, it submitted a supplementary challan under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. exonerating all the accused. According to stand taken in the reply, the Superintendent of Police (Detective) Moga recorded statements of various persons and reached a conclusion that all the accused were innocent. It is inexplicable how after presentation of challan on 21.6.2011, it submitted a supplementary challan under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. exonerating all the accused. According to stand taken in the reply, the Superintendent of Police (Detective) Moga recorded statements of various persons and reached a conclusion that all the accused were innocent. It is indeed strange that the said officer almost tried to conduct a trial in the case. After complainant succumbed to the injuries and investigation of a murder case commenced, job of the investigating agency was to conduct a thorough investigation and submit a report before the concerned court for its consideration. It appears, however, that investigation was superseded by certain inquiries conducted by various officers of the police, apparently without any authority of law. Superintendent of Police (Detective), Moga concluded his enquiry in the following manner:- “During enquiry it was found that Jatinder Mohan (Kukoo Pardhan) had gone to Mata Chindpurni and Jawala Ji (Himachal Pradesh) alongwith Vinay Kumar, Pardeep Kumar and Ravi Kumar and regarding this the Manager of Rajindra Bhawan Chintpurni, namely, Sanjiv gave statement that as per record from 30.11.2010 to 2.12.2010 rooms were booked vide Room No.2020 and this proves that he was there. In the case it has been alleged that Jatinder Mohan (Kukoo Pardhan) fired from his revolver and as per statements of Vineet Dabrha owner of Vineet Armoury/ Arms dealer, his revolver firing pin of his revolver No.A4469 was broken and was given for repair on 4.9.2010 and the same was with him since then and the firing pin was not received from ordinance factory and the same is with him only. During enquiry it has been found from the statement of witnesses that Charandass Handa was a patient of blood pressure and he was present in his house on that day as he is aged about 68/69 years and as per statement of Nirmal Joshi his blood pressure was very high on that very day and he could not move here and there and he is under treatment for the last 5/6 years. During enquiry Surjeet Singh @ Sita Tarewalia son of Pritam Singh, resident of Tara Singh Wala was found to be present in the Village Panchayat on the day of incident regarding the minor dispute of his crop and this has been verified by the Village Panchayat and his relatives in their statement. During enquiry Surjeet Singh @ Sita Tarewalia son of Pritam Singh, resident of Tara Singh Wala was found to be present in the Village Panchayat on the day of incident regarding the minor dispute of his crop and this has been verified by the Village Panchayat and his relatives in their statement. XXXXXXX During enquiry it has been found that deceased Kulwant Singh who was the present M.C. Of Nagar Council Ferozepur of Ward No.4 was a hooligan kind of person who had taken money credits from many persons and if anybody asks for his money he used to be beaten by him alongwith threats. Apart from his Kulwant Singh was involved in managing and playing gambling and it is possible that some unidentified persons in order to take revenge from him fired at Kulwant Singh and killed him. From the aforementioned circumstances and my detailed enquiry and from the statements of witnesses so forwarded by the complainant party alongwith affidavits so produced alongwith the record so produced, it is found that Jatinder Mohan (Kukoo Pardhan) son of Kasturi Lal, Charandass Handa son of Ram Chand, resident of Ferozepur City and Surjeet Singh @ Sita Tarewalia son of Pritam Singh Jat, resident of Tara Singhwala are innocent in case No.248 dated 1.12.2010 under section 302/34 IPC, 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, Police Station Ferozepur City, which may be noted. The S.H.O. Police Station may be directed that these persons be declared as innocent and the case be investigated deeply and real culprits be found and the weapons and vehicles used in the incident be recovered and the case be brought to logical end. Report submitted for further orders please. Sd/- Superintendent of Police (D) Moga 7.3.2011" 5. It is evident that the police officer gave a clean chit to all the accused on the basis of statements made by certain persons and labelled the deceased as the culprit. He observed that deceased being a hooligan and gambler may have killed by some unidentified persons. It is inexplicable how the officer gave such sweeping findings without conducting any investigation or forensic exercise. Besides, it appears he interfered in investigation without any authority of law. Facts and circumstances of this case are peculiar. The petitioners never associated with the investigation though incident occurred in December, 2010. It is well settled that custodial interrogation of accused in a serious crime is more elicitation oriented. Besides, it appears he interfered in investigation without any authority of law. Facts and circumstances of this case are peculiar. The petitioners never associated with the investigation though incident occurred in December, 2010. It is well settled that custodial interrogation of accused in a serious crime is more elicitation oriented. In the instant case, however, accused stubbornly evaded the process of law. Yet the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Moga found all the accused innocent and observed that deceased may have been killed by certain unidentified persons as he was a unscrupulous element. This court being conscious of gross irregularities committed in this case, is left with no option but to order investigation by an independent agency. Entire gamut and sequence of events needs to be gone into including conduct of Superintendent of Police (Detective), Moga. It appears that there has been practically no investigation in this case. There is nothing to show that any serious effort was made to apprehend the accused, to collect relevant material, to recover weapons/vehicles used in the crime or to conduct any forensic exercise. Besides, interference from higher officials is borne out from the stand taken by the State in its reply filed before this court. Under the circumstances, plea of the petitioners for quashing FIR No.248 dated 1.12.2010, registered at Police Station Ferozepur under sections 302/34 and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act as also order declaring them proclaimed offenders is hereby rejected. Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, investigation of the case is handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur shall forward the entire record of the case to Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh within ten days of receipt of this order. As there has already been inordinate delay in investigation of the matter, Central Bureau of investigation shall conclude its investigation within four months. Proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed meanwhile. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————