IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16029 of 2008. Date of Decision: 28th January, 2009. Swaranjeet Singh Petitioner through Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents. through Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. Ms. G.K.Mann, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant him monetary compensation and to entrust the further investigation regarding custodial death of his son, namely, Harinder Singh, to an independent agency, like CBI. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The petitioner is the unfortunate father of a 25 years old young person who died an unnatural death inside the Central Jail, Amritsar. The petitioner's son was arrested in connection with a case under the Punjab Excise Act and was an under-trial prisoner. According to the petitioner, his son was taken to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital on 27.10.2006 at about 5.22 PM where he died within 4-5 hours. No intimation was sent to the petitioner. It further appears that despite the specific allegations made by the petitioner that his son died an unnatural death, the police authorities were reluctant to take cognizance of his complaint. The petitioner was, therefore, compelled to approach this Court by way of Criminal Misc. No. 74621-M of 2006 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide his order dated 30th May, 2007 directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar to register an FIR and depute a Senior Police Officer preferably in the rank of Superintendent of Police [Detective] to conduct a fair and proper investigation. It is not in dispute that furtherance to the directions issued by this Court, FIR No. 275 dated 1.7.2007 has been registered at Police Station, Sadar Amritsar, under Section 302/34 IPC and after investigation, the challan has also been presented in the Sessions Court on 1.10.2008. It is further informed that charges have also been framed and the case is now fixed for prosecution evidence. In this second petition, the petitioner's grievance is that some of the suspects who were directly involved in the murderous assault on his son, have been allowed to go scot free and/or have been kept in Column No.2. The petitioner accordingly prays that the matter should be entrusted to some independent agency, like CBI for further investigation. The petitioner further submits that since the custodial death of his son now stands proved in the police investigation, he is entitled to be suitably compensated. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered view that since the challan has already been presented and the matter is now pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it will be appropriate to direct the learned trial Judge to look into the allegations made by the petitioner against those who are alleged to have not been either found involved or have been kept in Column No.2. Needless to say that if, on the basis of the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is satisfied regarding their complicity, further action in the matter, as may be permissible in law, shall be taken. As regards the petitioner's claim for compensation, though it may not be desirable for this Court to form a definite or final opinion regarding custodial death of the petitioner's son as it might prejudice the case of those who are facing trial and/or might unnecessarily influence the learned Additional Sessions Judge while proceeding against others, however, having regard to the material on record, which prima facie, establishes that the petitioner's son died an unnatural death while he was in judicial custody and lodged in the Central Jail at Amritsar, I am inclined to grant some interim compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, as an interim compensation. This shall not preclude the petitioner to seek further enhancement in the compensation if ultimately it is proved that his son suffered a custodial death. The observations made here-in-above shall have no bearing on the pending trial which shall be decided on independent appreciation of the evidence to be led by the parties. Disposed of. January 28, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE