SC Restores Criminal Proceedings Against Punjab DCP in 2016 Fake Encounter Case

The Supreme Court recently restored criminal proceedings against former Punjab Deputy Commissioner of Police Parampal Singh in a 2015 alleged fake encounter case, holding that acts aimed at destroying evidence do not fall within the scope of official duty and thus do not require prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also upheld the trial against nine other police officials accused of killing Mukhjit Singh alias Mukha during the encounter near Verka, Amritsar, on June 16, 2015.

“The cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice,” the bench said, rejecting the argument that removing number plates from the victim’s car was part of a bona fide police function; "Where the very accusation is suppression of evidence, the nexus is absent on the face of the record.”

Allegations and SIT Findings

According to the complaint filed by eyewitness Princepal Singh, a police team in plain clothes travelling in three vehicles intercepted a Hyundai i-20 and opened fire at close range, killing the driver. The complainant claimed to have witnessed the incident and alleged that the DCP later arrived and ordered the car’s number plates removed, amounting to destruction of evidence under Section 201 IPC.

That same night, police registered an FIR citing self-defence against gangster Jaggu Bhagwanpuria. However, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) later found the self-defence version to be false and recommended prosecuting eight officers for culpable homicide.

High Court Quashing, Supreme Court Reversal

The Judicial Magistrate summoned nine officers under Sections 302, 341, 148, 149 IPC and the DCP under Section 201 IPC.

A sessions court subsequently framed charges. The High Court upheld the proceedings against the nine but quashed them against the DCP for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

The Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the allegation of tampering with evidence bore no reasonable connection to official duty. It also rejected the DCP’s reliance on CCTV footage showing the car without number plates, noting that the footage did not indicate when or by whom the plates were removed.

“An act that is per se directed to erasing a potential exhibit, if ultimately proved, cannot be regarded as reasonably connected with any bona fide police duty,” the court observed.

The bench noted that CCTV footage corroborated the complainant’s account of police vehicles boxing in the i-20. Two eyewitness depositions and SIT findings further supported the case.

Rejecting objections under Section 210 CrPC, the Court clarified that a private complaint could proceed in the absence of a police report under Section 173 CrPC.

“No error of law or perversity of approach is shown,” the bench concluded, dismissing the Special Leave Petitions and restoring the trial against the DCP. It clarified that the trial court was free to evaluate the evidence independently and consider any plea for discharge at the appropriate stage.

Case Title: Head Constable Raj Kumar Etc. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.