Crl. Misc. No.M-36659 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-36659 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 26, 2010 Sukhjit Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shubhra Singh, DAG, Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Sukhjit Singh @ Jonny son of Late Sh.Kuldip Singh has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction to the respondents for handing over of the investigation of the case FIR No. 148 dated October 12, 2009 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 452, 427, 302, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Mullana to some other independent agency preferably CBI with a further prayer that all the accused be arrested and protection may be provided to the petitioner and his Crl. Misc. No.M-36659 of 2009 [2] family members. It is alleged in the petition that father of the petitioner, namely, Kuldip Singh was murdered by 15 persons on October 11, 2009. After he was beaten up to death by lathies and other arms, FIR No.148 was registered on October 12, 2009. He claims that initially only three persons were named in the FIR besides others who could not be identified at initial stage by the injured witness Bahadur Singh. It is claimed that Bahadur Singh, eye-witness has named 15 persons in the FIR but police did not register the names of all the accused, however, the names of the other persons were recorded on the next date on October 13, 2009. The police had arrested only two persons, namely, Gian Chand and Balbir Singh and has not arrested other persons. It has been alleged that one of the accused is Sub Inspector in Haryana police and his two sons are accused in the case whereas three other accused are brothers of another Sub Inspector and two accused are nephews of the Sub Inspector. Therefore, the police did not register the name of Sub Inspector and his relations. One accused Balkar Singh who has not been arrested, is close relation of Sh.Nirmal Singh, Ex- MLA, Haryana and he is co-accused with him in murder case. A vague reference has been made to a cross-case which has been registered against the petitioner under Section 307 IPC. It is alleged that the said cross-case has been registered in order to pressurize the petitioner. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the FIR No. 148 dated October 12, 2009 was registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 307 IPC at Police Station Mullana on the statement of Krishan Lal-injured against the petitioner who is Jat by caste. But a cross-version Crl. Misc. No.M-36659 of 2009 [3] subsequently came on the record on the statement of Bahadur Singh who is uncle of petitioner involving Balbir Singh, Gian Chand, Gujjar by caste and one Satish Kumar, Khatri by caste resident of Village Kalpi, Police Station Mullana, District Ambala in which the complainant Bahadur Singh named more than 10 unknown persons involved in the murder of Kuldeep Singh, father of the petitioner. The main occurrence is stated to be of October 11, 2009 at 6.00 p.m. which was brought to the notice of the police on the statement of Krishan Lal. It is reported that there are two groups in the village. One is Jat Sikh by caste and one is Gujjar by caste and criminal litigation is going on between members of both the groups. On the basis of the enquiry and investigation done till date, it has been stated in the affidavit that after giving beatings to Krishan Lal, Gujjar, the complainant Bahadur Singh and the deceased Kuldeep Singh were going on motor-cycle. They were chased by Balbir Singh, Gian Chand and Satish who were on motorcycle and were allegedly armed with swords and gandasi and then gave blows to Kuldeep Singh when he fell down from motorcycle, it was about 7.00 p.m. Both the occurrences are connected to each other. The complainant had hidden himself in the paddy fields whereas the petitioner got recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on October 12, 2009 claiming that he was following the motorcycle of his uncle Bahadur Singh. It has been claimed by the State that there are lot of prima facie contradictions between the statements of the complainant and cross-case under Section 302 IPC and that of petitioner. Satish Kumar has been named by the petitioner but he is also a witness in the other criminal case No.41 of Crl. Misc. No.M-36659 of 2009 [4] 2009 registered at police Station Mullana against the petitioner. Whether his name has been cited merely to pressurize him or whether he is actually involved in the crime is being looked into during investigation of the case. It has been stated in the affidavit that investigation of the case is going on strictly according to law in absolutely total impartial and unbiased manner. It is not out of place to mention here that a list of cases has been appended as annexure R-1 which stand registered against the petitioner. The said list includes following cases:- S.No. FIR No. Dated Offences under Section Police Station 1. 273 14.10.2002 323, 325, 34 IPC Mullana 2. 81 19.3.2006 323, 325, 326 IPC Parao 3. 64 1.5.2006 323, 452, 506, 34 IPC Mullana` 4. 191 5.7.2006 323, 324, 34 IPC Mullana 5. 107 6.11.2006 379 IPC Mullana 6. 05 8.1.2007 392, 120B IPC & 25, 54, 59 Arms Act Naraingarh 7. 10 11.1.2007 379 IPC Chhappar 8. 52 3.5.2007 392,397 IPC & 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act 1-A. Saha 9. 41 22.4.2009 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 452, 307 IPC Mullana 10. 145 10.10.2009 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 IPC Mullana 11. 148 12.10.2009 148, 149, 323, 307 IPC Mullana So far as the persons named by the petitioner and other witnesses in the cross-version case which is stated to be later in time is concerned, their relationship as alleged have not been denied but it is Crl. Misc. No.M-36659 of 2009 [5] averred in the reply that the accused Gian Chand is in judicial custody and other accused Balbir Singh after having been arrested has been bailed out. Name of none other person involved in the case has come on the record except Gulab Singh, Rampal and Satish. They appear to be evading arrest for which search is stated to be going on. I find force in the contention of counsel for the respondent that police cannot act on the dictates of a person who himself has got a criminal record. After hearing counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents, I am of the considered opinion that the partiality as alleged by the petitioner who himself is an accused in the case in a part of the same transaction, is not prima facie established. The petitioner has got certain apprehensions of partiality on the part of the police officials. It has been mentioned in the reply that the present case is handled by CIA Staff, Ambala and there is no need to refer the same to any other agency. So far as the protection sought for by the petitioner and his family members is concerned, it is ordered that in case of any imminent danger or threat to the life or limb of the petitioner it will be open to the petitioner to approach the competent police agency. This petition is dismissed. However, a direction is issued that in view of the allegations of partiality in the investigation, various steps of the investigation will be brought to the notice of the supervisory police authorities from time to time. Crl. Misc. No.M-36659 of 2009 [6] April 26, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE