* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 319 : 2024 INSC 22
Gurdev Singh Bhalla
v.
State of Punjab & Ors
(Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2024)
05 January 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision filed
by the appellant against the order of the Special Judge allowing
the application u/s. 319 CrPC summoning the appellant along with
three other officials of the Police Department.
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – Power to
proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of
offence – Case of misappropriation of paddy against father
of the informant – Application u/s. 319 for summoning the
appellant-Inspector investigating the crime and three other
police officials – Allegation against them that they demanded
money – Application allowed by the trial court – Said order
upheld by the High Court – Interference with:
Held: Statement of the informant providing complete facts with
respect to the conduct of the police officials immediately after
surrender of his father – Statement consistent throughout the
investigation and trial, and with the other witnesses-complainant’s
wife and his father giving the same details – Witnesses equivocally
narrated the incidents that took place at different places regarding
threats, demand of huge sum of money, torture of the father – In
view thereof, there appears to be prima facie evidence on record
to make it a triable case as against the appellant – Thus, the order
passed by the High Court not interfered with. [Paras 8, 14]
Case Law Cited
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab 2014(1) RCR 623
– followed.
320 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
List of Keywords
Summoning of the officials; Misappropriation; Investigation; Trial;
Evidence; Witness; Sanction; Torture in custody; Conduct of
police officials; Recording of statements; Police remand; Prima
facie evidence.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 120
of 2024.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2023 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No.1751 of 2018.
Appearances for Parties
Gaurav Agarwal, Aman Singhania, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sunil Fernandes, AAG, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Ms. Priyansha Sharma,
Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Ms. Diksha Dadu, Ms. Esshaa Miglani @ Pooja
Dhingra, Advs. for the Respondents.
Applicant-in-person
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
Leave granted.
2. The challenge by means of this appeal is to an order dated 23rd
March, 2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh whereby the Criminal Revision filed by the appellant
against the order of the Special Judge, Bathinda dated 05.03.2018
allowing the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19731
summoning the appellant along with three other
officials of the Police Department has been dismissed.
1 Cr.P.C.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 321
Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors
3. Relevant facts are as follows:
3.1 Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd., Bathinda, lodged
a complaint on 18.12.2012 at Police Station, Phul, District
Bathinda against one Devraj Miglani2
which was registered
as FIR No.91/2012 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 457, 380
of the Indian Penal Code, 18603
and Section 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19884
with the allegations that Devraj had misappropriated paddy
worth Rs.4.18 crores. The investigation of the said FIR was
transferred to the Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda on 2nd May,
2013 where the appellant was posted as an Inspector and
he was assigned the task of investigating the said crime. The
accused Devraj was arrested on 31.08.2013. He was granted
police remand on 04.09.2013 for 2-3 days until 06.09.2013
and thereafter he was confined to judicial custody.
3.2 Puneet Kumar Miglani5
, the informant of the present case,
happens to be the son of the accused Devraj. According to the
informant of the present case on 06.09.2013 Head Constable
Kikkar Singh approached Ms. Ritu, niece of the accused Devraj
at her work place i.e. Bathinda branch of the SBI demanding a
sum of Rs.50,000/- by handing over a slip which was said to
have been written by the accused Devraj apparently mentioning
that the holder of the slip may be provided the said amount.
It is alleged that some conversation also took place between
Devraj and his niece Ritu through the mobile phone of Head
Constable Kikkar Singh. The informant Puneet Miglani came
to know of the said demand by Kikkar Singh. He went to the
Bank, took the slip in his possession and after recording some
conversation between his wife and his father presented the
same along with a complaint before the learned Magistrate.
3.3 Direction was issued to the local police to register and inquire
into the said complaint. After due enquiry which was carried
out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Janak Singh, it
2 Devraj
3 IPC
4 PC Act
5 Puneet Miglani
322 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
was found that the allegation against the Head Constable
Kikkar Singh were prima facie made out and accordingly a
First Information Report6 No.11 of 2013 was registered on
11.09.2013 at police station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda under
Sections 166, 383, 385 IPC and also under the provisions of
the PC Act. During the investigation of the said FIR No.11/2013,
the statementsof informant, wife of informant, Devraj and
others were recorded. After completing the investigation, a
police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted on
16th January, 2014 against Head Constable Kikkar Singh only
under Sections 166, 383, 385 IPC and Sections 7, 13(2) of
the PC Act.
3.4 In the trial, the informant Puneet Miglani was first examined as
PW1 on 26.05.2014.
3.5 29.09.2014 coincidentally happened to be the date in both
the trials i.e. trial arising out of FIR No.91/2012 against Devraj
and also the trial arising out of FIR No.11/2013 against Head
Constable Kikkar Singh. The appellant proceeded to depose,
supporting the prosecution case as also the investigation
carried out by him against Devraj. On the said date in the trial
against Head Constable Kikkar Singh, informant in that case
Puneet Miglani gave further evidence as PW 1.On the said
date he completed his examination-in-chief as also the crossexamination. Additionally, he kept an application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. ready for summoning the appellant and the three
other police officials, and filed the same before the Court.
4. The Trial Court, vide order dated 08.09.2016 rejected the said
application on the ground of lack of sanction under the PC Act
as also Cr.P.C. The said order was challenged before the High
Court successfully and the High Court, by order dated 23.01.2018,
remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for passing a fresh order
ignoring the issue of sanction. The High Court was of the view that
no sanction was required. Pursuant to the remand, the Trial Court,
by order dated 05.03.2018 allowed the application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the four police officials, viz. (i) Janak
6 FIR
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 323
Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors
Singh, Dy.S.P., (ii) Gurdev Sigh Bhalla,, Inspector (appellant), (iii)
H.C. Harjinder Singh and (iv) H.C. Rajwant Singh. The said order of
05.03.2018 was challenged by the appellant before the High Court
primarily on the following grounds by way of criminal revision:
(i) The order of the Trial Court was not in accordance to the
principles laid down by this Court in the case of Hardeep
Singhvs. State of Punjab7
for summoning under Section 319
Cr.P.C.;
(ii) It was a pressure tactic on the part of the informant Puneet
Miglani to brow-beat the appellant as he had deposed against
his father Devraj;
(iii) The informant Puneet Miglani was a convict in another case
and, therefore, no reliance ought to have been placedon his
statement; and lastly,
(iv) The order passed by the Trial Court was bad on merits as
there was no evidence at all for passing the summoning order.
5. The High Court, as narrated earlier, by the impugned order dated
23rd March, 2023 dismissed the said revision.
6. It appears that before the High Court the main thrust of argument
was regarding lack of sanction. Shri Gaurav Agarwal, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant made the following submissions:
(i) The complaint dated 06.09.2013 did not contain any allegations
against the appellant;
(ii) The complaint made on 06.09.2013 related to demand of
Rs.50,000/- only. Subsequently, in the statement given on
29.09.2014, the allegation is that there was a demand of
Rs.24 lakhs by the four officials which included one Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Janak Singh, the appellant and two
other Head Constables viz. Harjinder Singh and Rajwant Singh;
(iii) A new case was sought to be set up only in order to brow-beat
the appellant as he had deposed against his father Devraj in
the other case.;
7 2014(1) RCR 623
324 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(iv) 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 Cr.P.C. but have not examined the
merits of the matter as to whether the principles and parameters
laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) had been
followed or whether the said ingredients were present before
the Trial Court so as to justify the summoning order under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.
7. On the other hand, Shri Sunil Fernandes, learned Addl.Advocate
General, appearing for the State of Punjab and Ms.Eshaa Miglani-wife
of the complainant, appearing in person on behalf of the complainant,
were heard. According to them, the courts below had correctly
appreciated the evidence on record. They also submitted 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. Our attention was also drawn to the
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation
as also before the Trial Court of the relevant witnesses. It was lastly
prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the appellant and other
police officials must face the trial for the crime committed by them.
8. Having considered the submissions and having perused the material
on record, it is quite apparent that the informant Puneet Miglani, in
his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 22.09.2013,
had narrated complete facts with respect to the conduct of the police
officials immediately after the surrender of his father on 30.08.2013 in
the case registered against him for mis-appropriation. The consistent
case right from that stage till the statement was recorded during
the trial on a number of occasions, the informant has supported the
statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Even Devraj and Eshaa Miglani
in their statements recorded during investigation on 15.10.2013 and
22.10.2013 respectively, have given the same details as narrated by
the informant Puneet Miglani on 22.09.2013. Further their statements
during trial also supports and is in line with their previous statement.
All these witnesses have equivocally narrated the incidents that took
place at different places regarding threats, demand of huge sum of
money, torture of Devraj etc.
9. The complaint dated 06.09.2013, on the basis of which the FIR
No.11/2013 was registered, related to the incident which happened
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 325
Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors
at the Bank where Ritu, niece of Devraj,was working Head Constable
Kikkar Singh had gone there to collect Rs.50,000/- against a slip
issued by Devraj. Since everything happened on the same day it
is quite possible that the entire story from the time of surrender
of Devraj could not have been mentioned but soon after that at
the first instance the conduct of the appellant and the other police
officials trying to extract money from Devraj and his family members
was mentioned in detail by all the witnesses. According to them,
the amount was being demanded for the following benefits to be
extended: (i) firstly, not to physically torture Devraj; (ii) not to ask
for further police remand; (iii) to help him get bail; and (iv) to give
him good treatment during his custody. The statement of Ms.Eshaa
Miglani as also Devraj recorded in the trial as PW-18 and PW-13
respectively have also supported the prosecution case regarding the
demand of huge amount of money for extending all the benefits, as
noted above.
10. The argument mainly advanced by the counsel for the appellant
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.
11. Further argument of Mr.Agarwal that the informant moved the
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 29.09.2014 was a counter
blast and with annoyance and vengeance as appellant had deposed
against his father on the same day, has no legs to stand. It is factually
incorrect. Informant PW 1 had given the same statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also before the Trial Court on 26.05.2014
which was continued on 29.09.2014.
12. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant with regard to
brow-beating the appellant as he was the Investigating Officer against
Devraj can be taken as a defence in the trial.
13. We have perused the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as also
the depositions of PW-1, PW-13 and PW-18. The parameters laid
down in the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (supra)
stand fully satisfied. We are refraining ourselves from commenting
on the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. being submitted
only charging Kikkar Singh to be sent for trial.
326 [2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
14. In view of the discussion made above, 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. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
15. We may also place on record the fact that we are not threadbare
discussing the testimony of the witness during the trial as it may
ultimately influence the Trial Court at a later stage. We, further,
make it clear that any observations made in this order will not
come in the way of the Trial Court in deciding the trial on its own
merits on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, completely
uninfluenced by this judgment.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case: Appeal dismissed
