Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on January 5, 2023 declined to interfere with an order summoning a Punjab police officer under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case related to threat, demand of huge sum of money and torture from the family members of a man, arrested for alleged misappropriation of paddy worth Rs 4.18 Cr.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal dismissed an appeal filed by Gurdev Singh Bhalla against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order of March 24, 2023, which had declined to interfere with order of summons issued by Special Court, Bhatinda on March 5, 2018 against him and three other officials of the police department.

The court said the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant with regard to brow-beating the appellant as he was the Investigating Officer against misappropriation case accused Devraj can be taken as a defence in the trial. 

After having perused the statements under Section 161 CrPC as also the depositions of PW-1, PW-13 and PW-18, (son and relatives of Devraj), the bench noted the parameters laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment in 'Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab' (2014) stood fully satisfied. 

"We are refraining ourselves from commenting on the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC being submitted only charging Kikkar Singh, a head constable to be sent for trial," the bench said. 

"There appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case as against the appellant. We, accordingly, are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order," the bench said.

The court also explained that it was not threadbare discussing the testimony of the witness during the trial as it may ultimately influence the trial court at a later stage. 

The appellant here, posted as Inspector with Vigilance Bureau was assigned the task of investigating an FIR lodged on December 18, 2012 for cheating and misappropriation and other offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 

The accused Devraj was arrested on August 31, 2013.

Son of the accused Puneet Kumar Miglani lodged a complaint with a magistrate alleging head constable Kikkar Singh was sent to meet Ritu, his cousin with a slip to demand Rs 50,000 for not torturing Devraj.

The police investigated the allegations, filed an FIR as well as the charge sheet only against Kikkar Singh.

Upon application under Section 319 CrPC, the trial court summoned the four police officials, Janak Singh, DySP, appellant Gurdev Sigh Bhalla, Inspector, Head Constables Harjinder Singh and Rajwant Singh. 

The appellant contended there was a lack of sanction and the complaint did not contain any allegation against him.

The complaint was related to demand of Rs 50,000 only. Subsequently, in the statement, the allegation is that there was a demand of Rs 24 lakhs by the four officials, he said.

A new case was sought to be set up only in order to brow-beat the appellant as he had deposed against complainant's father Devraj in the other case, the appellant said.

"The Trial Court and the High Court have mainly confined the discussion with respect to sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of the CrPC but have not examined the merits of the matter as to whether the principles and parameters laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh had been followed or whether the said ingredients were present before the Trial Court so as to justify the summoning order," the appellant's counsel said.

On the contrary, the Punjab government as well as the complainant contended that the appellant and other police officials had harassed and tortured not only Devraj while he was in custody but had also threatened and tortured the family members both mentally and physically in order to extract huge amount of money. 

After going through the statements of witnesses, the bench said they have been consistent that the amount was being demanded for not to physically torture Devraj; not to ask for further police remand; to help him get bail; and to give him good treatment during his custody.

"The argument mainly advanced that the FIR mentioned only about Rs 50,000 whereas subsequent story of Rs 24 lakhs had been set up only in order to brow-beat the appellant being annoyed with the appellant because he gave evidence against his father, may be difficult to accept," the bench said.

The court also found that it was factually incorrect for the appellant to contend application under Section 319 CrPC on September 29, 2014 was a counterblast and with annoyance and vengeance as appellant had deposed against his father on the same day, had no legs to stand as the complainant made the same allegations in police statement prior to the date.

 

Cause Title: Gurdev Singh Bhalla Vs State of Punjab