IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-912 of 2009 Date of decision: March 16, 2009 Avtar Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 to 6. Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent No.7. S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed for quashing the order regarding re-inquiry marked to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garshankar (respondent No.6). It is alleged by the petitioner that re-inquiry which has been marked to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garshankar (respondent No.6) is contrary to the DGP instructions dated 1.4.2008 (Annexure P3). The facts of the case are that the incident occurred on 31.3.2008 which led to registration of FIR No.39 dated 3.4.2008 at Police Station Dasuya for the offences under Sections 452, 324, 325, 323, 506, 427, 148 and 149 IPC. The FIR was registered on the statement of Mohinder Singh (respondent No.7). It is alleged by the complainant that on 31.3.2008, he along with his wife Amarjit Kaur and children Sukhwinder Singh and Baljit Kaur were at their house. At that time, a small gate of the main gate was opened. There Jagtar Singh @ Ghatol passed 2-3 times in front of their house on his motorcycle. On seeing Jagtar Singh @ Ghatol time and Crl. Misc. No. M-912 of 2009 [2] again, the complainant closed the main gate and bolted it from inside and sat in the courtyard. At about 8.15 a.m., when the complainant was talking to his family, there was a knock at the main gate. When the complainant opened the main gate, the person outside pushed him and opened the gate and entered the house of the complainant. The persons who entered the house of the complainant included Avtar Singh (petitioner) armed with ‘kirpan’, Paramjit Singh armed with ‘khunda’, his brother Jagtar Singh armed with ‘gandasi’, Amrik Singh armed with ‘gandasi’ and Makhan Singh armed with ‘saria’. Four other persons reached the roof of the house of the complainant from the stairs of the house of his (complainant’s) neighbours. These included Amritpal Singh armed with ‘hockey’, Telu armed with ‘iron rod’, Satpal Singh @ Gurdial Singh armed with ‘dattar’, Bittu armed with ‘gandasi’. They initially threw brick bats in the courtyard of the complainant from the roof and then they came down in the courtyard while shouting lalkara. Then Avtar Singh (petitioner) shouted a lalkara that Mohinder Singh – complainant be taught a lesson for demanding a mobile phone belonging to his (Mohinder Singh’s) nephew from them. Avtar Singh (petitioner) gave a blow with his ‘kirpan’ on the complainant with an intention to kill him. The same hit on his head. The other assailants also caused injuries. Avtar Singh (petitioner) it is alleged had snatched the mobile phone of Manpreet Singh – nephew of the complainant and the complainant was demanding the same. Due to this, the petitioner Avtar Singh and his accomplices had caused injuries to the complainant and his family members after entering their house. In respect of the same occurrence, the cross-version has also been registered on the statement of Jagtar Singh. The role attributed to the complainant-Mohinder Singh is that he gave various blows with the reverse side of a ‘kirpan’ on the left thigh of Jagtar Singh –complainant in the cross version. The matter was inquired into by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Crl. Misc. No. M-912 of 2009 [3] (Detective), Kapurthala and in his report, deletion of Section 452 IPC was recommended and six of the nine accused including Amrik Singh were recommended to be exonerated and kept in Column No.2 of the challan to be filed. The complainant side has got an inquiry now marked from the Chief Minister, Punjab which is pending consideration with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garshankar (respondent No.6). Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in terms of the DGP instructions (Annexure P3), the inquiry is liable to be conducted by an officer outside the district. It is submitted that due to party faction in the village, the petitioner is not likely to get a fair inquiry and Section 452 IPC which has been recommended to be deleted would be added. In response, Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab learned counsel for the State has referred to the affidavit of the Inspector General of Police, Zonal-II, Jalandhar (respondent No.3) which was filed in the case on 11.2.2009. It has inter alia been stated that investigation in the case is being conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garshankar in a fair manner and under the supervision of Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur. It is also submitted that the investigation in the case can be transferred to some other office outside the district. However, there was no such requirement in the present case. It is well known that the field of investigation is the domain of the Police and the Courts normally do not interfere with the same, unless, it is shown that the Investigating authorities transgress the circumscribed limits of the prescribed jurisdiction or act illegally causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and property of a citizen. On such a case being shown, the Courts are obliged to interfere. In the present case, the inquiry is being conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garshankar and he is the Officer having jurisdiction in the Crl. Misc. No. M-912 of 2009 [4] matter. The petitioner has not participated in the inquiry. He only apprehends that the inquiry would not be fair as it is being held by an officer of the same district. The apprehension of the petitioner is based on the fact that due to political interference of the parties, he would not be able to get a fair investigation done in district Hoshiarpur. However, this aspect would not impel this Court to pre-judge the issue that the inquiry would not be fair. Besides, in case the need so arises, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the authorities for holding a fresh inquiry after the present inquiry is complete. For the present, there is no error of jurisdiction in case the inquiry is conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garshankar. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 16, 2009 amit