IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M-2683 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.4.2010 Harpal Kaur …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Mr RS Modi, proxy counsel for the petitioner. Mr Shilesh Gupta, DAG Punjab. S.S.SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC – for short) has been filed seeking transfer of investigation of DDR 23 dated 22.5.2009 in case FIR 71 dated 22.5.2009 registered at PS Sadar Malerkotla, District Sangrur for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 148/149 of the India Penal Code (IPC – for short) to some other agency like Crime Branch etc. with a further prayer for issuing directions to the Police to complete the investigation in the case and file challan within a specified time. On 17.2.2010 a copy of this petition was given to the learned State counsel so as to enable him to seek instructions in the matter. Reply of Sh Sukhdev Singh Virk, PPS, DSP Sub Division, Malerkotla, has been filed on behalf of respondents-1 to 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that the petitioner received grievous injury and it has also been admitted in the FIR Cr Misc M-2683 of 2010 2 by Tej Kaur (respondent-4) that they caused injuries to the petitioner, the Police did not take any action in the cross case which has been registered on the statement of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, she has lost faith in the local Police. FIR 71 dated 22.5.2009 (P2) has been registered on the statement of Tej Kaur (respondent-4). According to the complainant, her husband – Jaspal Singh @ Pala is one of the four brothers. They all are residing separately. Adjoining the house of the complainant, there is cultivable land measuring about 2 Bighas of all the four brothers. On the North side of the land of the complainant and her husband, the land of other three brothers lies. On demarcation carried out by the Railways, the canal minor (khal) came in its jurisdiction. On 21.5.2009, the brothers-in-law (Devars) of the complainant namely Gurdev Singh, Jagdev Singh and Jasbir Singh tried to forcibly set up a ‘khal’ (water-course) in the land of the complainant. The complainant went to stop them; upon which Gurdev Singh called the three sisters-in-law (Devranis) of the complainant. Jaspal Kaur @ Palo wife of Gurdev Singh, Parvinder Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh both armed with ‘dandas’ and Jagdeep Kaur wife of Jagdev Singh empty handed, came there. On this, Jagdeep Kaur said that the complainant Tej Kaur should not be spared and she be taught a lesson for stopping them for laying the ‘khal’. Due to fear, the complainant ran away towards her house. Then all her three brothers-in-law (Devars) and Gurpreet Singh son of Gurdev Singh came at the spot and encircled her. Jasbir Kaur gave a blow with a spade on the right shoulder of the complainant Tej Kaur and Gurdev Singh gave a spade blow on her right elbow. Jagdev Singh gave a spade blow which hit her right elbow, due to which, the complainant fell down. Then Gurpreet Singh, who had a ‘gandasi’, hit the complainant on her right thigh from its reverse Cr Misc M-2683 of 2010 3 side. The sisters-in-law (Devranis) of the complainant also gave a ‘danda’ blow while the complainant lay on the ground. The entire incident was witnessed by Jaspal Singh @ Pala – husband of the complainant and Sandeep Kaur – daughter of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant, her husband and her daughter raised an alarm ‘ maar ditta maar ditta’. Then all the persons ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. The reason for the incident was that the Railways had damaged the ‘khal’ which was passing through the fields. Since then, a dispute was pending between them regarding the water-course (khal). Injuries had been caused to the complainant by the assailants in conspiracy with each other. It was requested that suitable action be taken against them. The petitioner, who is wife of Gurdev Singh, had lodged a DDR 23 dated 22.5.2009 setting up a cross-version. In the reply that has been filed, it is stated that on an application of the petitioner and of Jaspal Singh to the SSP Sangrur, an inquiry was entrusted to the DSP (Detective) Sangrur. The matter was inquired into by the DSP (Detective) himself and through the Incharge, CIA Staff, Bahadurgarh. Statements of various witnesses were recorded. After going through the statements, the opinion of the doctor who examined the petitioner as to the nature of the injuries and the manner in which these were caused to the petitioner was also sought. A report was submitted to the SSP, Sangrur, which is to the effect that the injuries on the person of the petitioner were either self-inflicted or were caused by someone. No case for the offence under Section 326 IPC was made out. This report of the DSP was accepted by the SSP Sangrur. As such, challan was submitted only against the persons who were accused including the petitioner on the complaint of Tej Kaur (respondent No.4). Cr Misc M-2683 of 2010 4 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner in case she is dissatisfied with the report, may pursue her other remedies in accordance with law. This Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is normally not to interfere with the course of investigation, which as is well known, is the domain of the Police. The petitioner may, if so advised, pursue her other remedies in accordance with law. However, no case is made out for interference by this Court in this regard. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 21.4.2010 (S.S.SARON) ASR Judge