Crl.Misc.No. M-18244 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-18244 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12 - 1 - 2009 Jaswinder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anter Singh Brar, DAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) This Court on 23.7.2008 had passed the following order:- “Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking issuance of direction to DGP and other Police officials to submit the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as various Police officers have conducted investigation in case FIR No. 24 dated 09.02.2006 registered at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana under Section 420 IPC. In the FIR, petitioner has stated that respondent No.6 has embezzled the money by giving false promise to the complainant-petitioner for sending him abroad. It is stated that petitioner was promised by respondent No.2 that on payment of Rs.12.00 lacs, he will be sent abroad to United States of Crl.Misc.No. M-18244 of 2008 [2] America. It is stated that Rs.3.00 lacs were given in front of one Harinder Singh Jaid, and receipt was issued by respondent No.6. Before the grievances of the petitioner are dealt with, it will be necessary to reproduce the order (Annexure P-9) passed by Director General of Police, Punjab Chandigarh on 1st April, 2008, which is as under: “It has come to light that enquiries are being got conducted by the applicant’s side or opposite side by giving various applications. In this connection, on one application or case, various enquiries are got conducted from the officers of the district or from the higher officers of outside districts. For this, tension between the general public is being increased and they always try in getting reports in their favour. Keeping this experience, reports are given against one another which affect the case. The senior officers face difficulty in finding out the truth and giving independent decision. So, in future concerning one application or case, only enquiry be conducted by the concerned officers of the district which should be complete on the basis of proofs. In case on any application or case, the enquiry is to be got conducted from the higher officers of outside district/ Range, then the case be sent for further enquiry after approval of the undersigned or Punjab Government. Strict compliance be made. Sd/- Director General, Police, Punjab, Chandigarh” Case of the petitioner is that multiple inquiries have been Crl.Misc.No. M-18244 of 2008 [3] conducted by the respondents in contravention of the directions issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab vide Annexure P-9. It has been stated that firstly an inquiry was conducted by DSP, Control Room, who held the respondent No.6 to be guilty. Subsequently, an inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police, City-II, Amritsar, who also held respondent No.6 to be guilty. A third inquiry was assigned to Superintendent of Police, City-II, Ludhiana, who again found respondent No.6 to be guilty. It has been further stated that inquiry conducted by SP, City-II, Amritsar was approved by ADGP. It has been contended that not only three inquiries were found sufficient, now a Deputy Commissioner has assumed jurisdiction to hold an inquiry and a notice has been issued by the Tehsildar. Reference has been made to Annexure P-8 addressed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana to DIG Ludhiana Range, wherein number of instances (ten) have been given where respondent No.6 have cheated various persons. Issue notice to DGP Punjab to file an affidavit as to why directions given by him in Annexure P-9 are not being adhered to by his subordinates. Multiple inquiries not only cause injustice to the petitioner-complainant but also become a source of abuse, harassment and cause delay in conclusion of criminal investigation and trial. How many inquiries and by how many officials? A sort Crl.Misc.No. M-18244 of 2008 [4] of self-discipline is required to be instilled in Punjab Police by the officials who are at the helm of affairs. To await the affidavit of the DGP, adjourned to 13th August, 2008. At this stage, Counsel for the petitioner states that now Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar has assumed the jurisdiction and in a fresh inquiry, has called the petitioner to appear. Till the affidavit is furnished by the DGP, petitioner need not appear before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar.” In compliance of the above order dated 23.7.2008 passed by this Court, Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh has filed an affidavit on behalf of State of Punjab. He has stated as under:- “1. That it was observed, enquiries in criminal cases were being got conducted by the parties from time to time resulting in multiplicity and different reports. 2. That, therefore, this office issued instructions on 1.4.2008 elaborating the procedure to be followed in future. These instructions are normally being followed in principle by field officers. As a matter of principle only one enquiry is required. However, in some cases in the interest of justice and fair play and to reach the truth it becomes imperative to get the matter further enquired. Some times further enquiry is ordered/directed by Judicial Court or Human Rights Commission or other statutory bodies or the State.” Crl.Misc.No. M-18244 of 2008 [5] In view of the affidavit filed, it will be necessary to hold that instructions issued by the Director General of Police, Punjab on 1.4.2008 be strictly construed and once enquiry has been held, no further enquiry ought to be held by the police except for the orders given by the Courts and Human Rights Commission or any other statutory body of the State or as envisaged in the instructions issued by the Director General of Police, which say that if inquiry is to be got conducted from officers of outside district/range, then the case be sent for further inquiry after approval of the Director General of Police and the Punjab Government. Any violation of the instructions, Annexure P-9, shall not be looked favourably and the concerned person holding enquiry shall be fastened with costs. In the present case, no costs are being imposed as the Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Superintendent of Police (Detective) has assured that in future no such course shall be adopted and due sanctity shall be given to the instructions, Annexure P-9, issued by the State of Punjab. Shri Gurpreet Singh, Superintendent of Police (Detective), Ludhiana City is present in Court. He has stated that investigation has been concluded. It has been decided to submit a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the accused. He further submits that a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. shall be submitted in the office of District Attorney within two weeks from today. In the present case, case was registered on 9.2.2006. It is expected that after the due process, on the opinion formulated by the District Attorney, investigation shall be taken to the logical conclusion. Mr.Agnihotri state that in view of the statement made by Shri Gurpreet Singh, Superintendent of Police (Detective) and the observations Crl.Misc.No. M-18244 of 2008 [6] of this Court, he shall not press the present petition. Petition stands disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) January 12, 2008. JUDGE RC