Page 1

Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2530 OF 2014 @ (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.2038 OF 2013)

ZORAWAR SINGH & ANR.      .… APPELLANTS

Versus

GURBAX SINGH BAINS & ORS.         ….RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. This petition for special leave to appeal challenges the judgment and  

order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in  

Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-6656 of 2011.   Leave granted.

2. On 28.09.2010, a complaint was given by one Karnail Singh alleging  

that on the intervening night of 27th and 28th of September 2010 in a road  

accident  between  a  Ford  Endeavour  Car  having  registration  No.  PCP 17  

driven by Zorawar Singh i.e. the present Appellant No.1 and a truck bearing  

Registration No. HR 58- 3264 at Liberty Chowk, Rajpura, District Patiala,

Page 2

two students namely Gagandeep Singh Bains (son of the present respondent  

no.1) and Gaurav Verma died and the other two occupants of the car namely  

Appellant No.1 and one Jaskaran Singh got badly injured and were moved to  

the hospital .  On these allegations FIR No.219 was registered under section  

304A, 279, 337, 427 IPC at Police Station, Rajpura against the driver of the  

truck.  

3. Respondent  No.1  however  submitted  representation  to  the  Director  

General of Police, Punjab alleging that his son had not died in that accident  

but was murdered in a pre-planned manner.  Similar such representation in  

the form of an application dated 21.02.2011 was sent by Respondent No.1 to  

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was registered as Diary No.350  

dated 23.02.2011 and was placed before a learned Single Judge who directed  

that  the  application  be  placed  on  the  judicial  side  of  the  High  Court.  

Accordingly  a  note  was  prepared  by  the  office  of  the  High  Court  on  

26.02.2011 requesting the learned Chief Justice whether the petition could be  

registered under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for transferring the case to CBI for  

investigation into the matter.   The learned Chief  Justice  having given his  

approval, the matter was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No.6656 of  

2011 and was placed before a learned single Judge who by her order dated  

03.03.2011 issued notice to the State of Punjab.

2

Page 3

4. In the meantime the Principal Secretary, Home, Punjab vide his letter  

dated 27.02.2011 entrusted the matter to Shri Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh  

IPS, DIG (Crime) to conduct independent investigation and submit his report.  

The matter before the High Court stood adjourned from time to time and on  

18.11.2011 the High Court was told that the enquiry was nearing completion.  

On the next date i.e., on 21.12.2011 the High Court was informed that the  

DIG (Crime) had concluded his enquiry and had recommended addition of  

offence under Section 302 IPC.   The order passed by the High Court  on  

21.12.2011 was to the following effect:

“State Counsel  on instructions says that  inquiry in this  case  has  been  concluded  and  the  DIG  (Crime)  has  recommended addition of offence under Section 302 IPC.  Let the report in this regard be placed on record. Adjourned to 16.01.2012.”

5. On  27.12.2011  said  DIG  (Crime)  submitted  his  enquiry  report  in  

which he concluded as under:

“As  per  the  enquiry  conducted  by me that  keeping  in  view the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the  case  FIR  No.219  dated  28.09.2010  registered  under  section 279, 304-A, 427 IPC police station city Rajpura  has not been found on the basis of true and material facts  and the investigation also seems to be done by concealing  the  true  and  real  facts  especially  as  per  the  statement  given by the eye witness Jatinder Singh (truck conductor)  that fight took place at the spot between the two parties  came in two different cars and the case is not found of  

3

Page 4

road  accident.   So  custodial  interrogation  of  the  concerned persons is necessary as the matter is of serious  nature.  So after registering the case under section 302  IPC,  it  is  recommended to investigate  the matter  from  some independent and impartial Agency for bringing the  truth into light.”

Sd/-

6. Though the report had stated that a case be registered under Section  

302  IPC  and  that  the  investigation  be  thereafter  handed  over  to  some  

independent and impartial agency, a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’ for  

short) was constituted by the Director General of Police, Punjab, who did not  

agree with the findings in  the aforesaid report.    On 24.01.2012 State  of  

Punjab issued a letter that the SIT constituted by the police department was  

directed  to  be  disbanded  and  that  the  matter  be  pursued  in  the  Court  as  

already submitted.  Said letter was to the following effect:-

“GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS & JUSTICE

(HOME VII BRANCH) To

The Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh, Memo.No.4/14/12-2-g-7/234 dated 24.01.2012

Sir,

Kindly refer to the subject cited above. In  this  context  it  is  stated  that  a  SIT  (Special  

Investigation  Team)  comprising  of  Sh.  B.K.  Garg  I.G.  (Crime) Sh. R.K. Sharda, SP Crime and Gurbir Singh SP  

4

Page 5

has  been  constituted  by  the  Police  deptt.  without  the  directions of the Court.  It is pertinent to point out here,  that matter is already sub-judice in the court of law as per  the investigations completed by Sh. Kanwar Vijay Partap  Singh IPS, DIG Crime, Mohali.

To reinvestigate the case without the directions of  the court by the SIT will lead to tempering the evidence  and record as the inferences drawn by the SIT may be  different  from  Kanwar  Vijay  Partap  Singh  IPS  DIG  Crime, on account of which the case under Section 302  has been filed in the Court of law.

As  such,  constitution  of  SIT  by  Police  deptt.  without any rhyme or reason is of no avail  and unless  Hon’ble court orders in this context.

Keeping  in  view the  facts  stated  above  the  SIT  constituted by Police Deptt. is directed to be disbanded.  The  matter  be  pursued  in  the  court  of  law as  already  submitted.

SD/-O.P. Bhatia   Deputy Secretary, Home and Justice

Endsst No.11/14/12-2g7/239 dated Chandigarh 25.1.2012 A copy of above is forwarded to Sh. Gurbax Singh Bains  H.No.206 Phase 6 Mohali for information with reference  to his application dated 17.01.2012.

              Sd/- Superintendent”

7. Inspite of the aforesaid directions, the SIT went ahead and submitted  

its  report  on  01.03.2012,  the  conclusions  wherein  were  to  the  effect  that  

whatever happened was road accident and that  the allegations levelled by  

Respondent No. 1 that it was an act of murder, were absolutely baseless.  The  

matter  appeared  before  the  High  Court  on  24.04.2012  and  the  following  

order was passed:-

5

Page 6

“Applicant –Sardar Gurbax Singh Bains submits that the  respondents police authorities are intending to present the  report  under  Section  173  Cr.PC,  on  the  basis  of  investigation  conducted  by  the  Special  Investigation  Team  (S.I.T)  constituted  vide  order  dated  4.1.2012,  which came to be disbanded by the State of Punjab, vide  order dated 24.1.2012. He further submits that once the  SIT has been disbanded vide order dated 24.1.2012, the  S.I.T has no jurisdiction to proceed further to prepare the  conclusion report. Notice  of  the  application  to  the  non-applicants  for  23.07.2012. In  the  meantime,  the  report  under  Section  173  Cr.PC  (Challan)  shall  not  be  presented  before  the  court  concerned  ,  on  the  basis  of  the  report  dated  1.3.2012  submitted  by  the  S.I.T.  constituted  vide  order  dated  4.1.2012,  which  had  been  disbanded  vide  order  dated  24.1.2012. However, the investigating agency would be at liberty to  proceed  further  on  the  basis  of  the  report  dated  27.12.2011 submitted by the Deputy Inspector General of  Police  (Crime),  Punjab,  recommending  addition  of  the  offence  under  Section  302  IPC to  FIR No.  219  dated  28.09.2010  under  Sections  304-A,  279,  337,427  IPC  registered  at  Police  Station  Rajpura,  Distt.  Patiala.  A  copy  of  this  order  be  given  dasti  to  the  learned  State  Counsel as well as to the Petitioner, who is appearing in  person, under signatures of the Court Secretary attached  to this Bench, for onward submission to the authorities  concerned for compliance thereof. To be listed for further consideration on 23.07.2012.”

The  High  Court  thus  clearly  directed  that  the  investigating  agency  

could  proceed  on  the  basis  of  the  report  submitted  by  the  DIG (Crime),  

6

Page 7

recommending addition of  offence under  Section 302 of  IPC and that  its  

order be placed before the concerned authority for due compliance.

8. The  record  further  indicates  that  the  Inspector  General  of  Police  

(Crime), however, submitted a report on 17.07.2012.  The concluding part of  

the report was to the following effect:-

“…..So,  after  perusal  and  examining  all  documents,  witnesses and reports of both the enquiry reports I am of  the considered view that it is clearly an accidental case  and no doubt can be raised regarding the death of two  boys in this road accident. The investigation conducted  by SIT is a through enquiry which has to be appreciated  as the members of the SIT have gone down to the depth  of the case and has examined this case at every point. As  the  DIG  crime  Sh.  Kunwar  Vijay  Partap  Singh,  has  himself recommended in his report that the matter needs  to be investigated from some independent and impartial  agency for bringing the truth in to light, so, taking into  consideration  the  recommendations  of  the  DIG Crime,  the then DGP Punjab constituted a SIT who submitted its  report to the DGP, Punjab who after agreeing with the  report  of  the  SIT directed  to  present  the  report  in  the  Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The same was  presented in the Hon’ble High Court on 01.03.2012. As it  is purely an accidental case and we should stick to the  report of the SIT and I am of the opinion that report of  the SIT should be accepted. However we should inform  the Principal Secretary Home, to review his orders dated  24.01.2012 and 22.02.2012 regarding disbanding of the  SIT by sending him a report of special investigation team  alongwith the comments of the Crime Branch. Hon’ble  Punjab & Haryana High Court may also be apprised of  the matter accordingly as the case if fixed for hearing on  28.07.2012.”

7

Page 8

9. Immediately after the aforesaid report dated 17.07.2012, another SIT  

was  constituted  vide  order  dated  18.07.2012  and  the  said  order  reads  as  

under:-

  “PUNJAB GOVERNMENT HOME AFFAIRS AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

(HOME -4 BRANCH) I Order

With a view to conduct investigation concerning FIR No.  219  dated  28.09.2010,  Police  Station  Rajpura  city  District  Patiala,  a  team,  under  the  supervision  of  Shri  Kanwar Vijay Partap Singh, IPS, is constituted in which  two officers not below the rank of DSP can be included  by him. In addition to it, he will have full authority to get  cooperation & sevices of any officer/official.

Dated: Chandigarh                     D.S. Bains 18.7.2012                                            Principal Secretary,                     Punjab Government,              Home Affairs & Law Department Endst.  No.  7/4/12-5H/1424-26  dated  Chandigarh  20.07.2012.

A  copy  of  above  is  sent  to  the  following  for  information & necessary action:- 1. Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh 2. Shri  Kanwar  Vijay  Partap  Singh,  IPS  ,Deputy  Inspector  General  of  Police,  Punjab,  Armed  Police,  Chandigarh. 3. Shri Gurbax Singh Bains, House No. 206, Phase 6,  Mohali 160055

Sd/-

          Under Secretary, Home”

8

Page 9

10. When  the  matter  appeared  before  the  High  Court  on  23.07.2012  

constitution of fresh SIT was brought to the notice of the High Court and at  

the request of the counsel for the State the matter stood adjourned. Following  

was the text of the order passed by the High Court on 23.07.2012:-

“Affidavit  of  Vibhu  Raj,  Deputy  Inspector  General  of  Police, Crime, Punjab filed in the Court today is taken on  record  and  copy  thereof  has  been  supplied  to  the  petitioner, who is appearing in person. Learned  counsel  for  the  State,  on  instructions  from  Inspector Manjit Singh, Crime Branch, Punjab, submits  that  the  newly  constituted  Special  Investigating  Team  (S.I.T) headed by Kunwar Vijay Partap Singh, is already  seized of the matter. However, he submits that the newly  S.I.T.  would require  reasonable  time to investigate  the  matter.

                    On his request, adjourned to 31.10.2012. In the meantime, fresh status report be filed by way of  affidavit of the concerned officer.”

11. On 27.09.2012, the SIT was however reconstituted and the relevant  

portion of the order dated 27.09.2012 is to the following effect:-

“….The  Principal  Secy.  Home,  Punjab  vide  order  No.  7/4/12-3H4/1753 dated 12.09.12,  directed the office of  DGP, Punjab to the effect as that in this matter the Govt.  decided  that  keeping  in  view  the  natural  justice,  the  investigation  of  this  case  may  be  conducted  by  constituting  a  Special  Investigation  Team  at  his  level  (office of DGP/Punjab).

In compliance with the order dated 12.09.2012 of  Home Deptt.,  Punjab,  a  Special  Investigation  Team to  investigate  the  above  said  case  FIR  No.  219  dated  28.09.2010 u/s 304-A, 279,337,427 IPC P.S. Rajpura is  

9

Page 10

hereby constituted under the Chairmanship of IGP /Zonal  ,  Patiala,  who  may select  two SP rank  officers  of  his  Zone (except that  of  Distt.  Patiala)  alongwith requisite  supporting  staff/police  personnel,  to  conduct  the  investigation expeditiously and submit its status report at  the earliest. The said SIT may specifically and discreetly  examine  the  two  earlier  Report  (i.e.  dated  27.12.2011  submitted by Sh. Kunwar Vijay Partap Singh, IPS, and,  another Report  dated 31.1.2012 submitted based on its  investigations. Any other records in any office, if the said  SIT so considers appropriate, may also be examined by it  accordingly.

Sd/-    AIG /Crime

     For Addl. Director General of Police, Crime, Punjab, Chandigarh.

                  No. 21960-64/CR-LA dated:27/9/12”

12. The SIT so reconstituted, submitted its report on 29.01.2013 and the  

concluding part was as under :-

“In this case as per evidence on file no such facts that  attract  offence under section 302 IPC is proved. It  is  only a case of an accident. In this case Pardeep Kumar  and endavour car driver Zorawar were found guilty and  therefore, offences under section 283, 337, 338, 304 A  IPC was  proved  against  Pardeep  Kumar  Driver,  and  offences  under  section  279,337,338,304  IPC  was  proved against  endavour  car  driver  Zorawar  Singh is  made out. The proceedings are required to be initiated  against Pardeep Kumar driver and Zorawar Singh under  above said offences.  The departmental action may be  taken against ASI Hari Singh due to non-conduction of  investigation  in  proper  manner.  During  investigation,  the case has also been found of an accident.

The report is submitted.”

1

Page 11

13. It appears that on 14.02.2013 without any express permission from the  

High Court a challan under Section 173 was filed in the concerned Court  

with following averments:-

“….  From the  investigation/enquiry  conducted  Special  Investigation Team, in this case no such facts/eveidences  were  noticed  from  which  offence  punishable  under  section 302 IPC is going to be confirmed. From the upto  dated  enquiry/investigation  this  is  made  out  a  case  of  accident  in  which  Pardeep  Kumar  Truck  Driver  and  Endeavour  Car  Driver  Jorawar  Singh have been found  accused.  Therefore,  offence  punishable  under  section  283,  337,  338,  304-IPC against  Pardeep  Kumar  Truck  Drier and offence punishable under section 279,337,338  304-A IPC against endeavour car driver Jorawar Singh  are proved. From the upto date investigation, statements  of  witnesses,  record,  post  mortem  report  etc.  offence  punishable under section 283, 279, 337, 338, 304-IPC is  made  out  against  the  accused  Truck  Driver  Pardeep  Kumar  and  Endeavour  car  driver  Jorawar  Singh.  So,  from Challan under Section 173 Cr. PC is prepared and  submitted  your  goodself  for  trial.  Accused  entered   in  column No. 4 be called by issuing summons and given  appropriate  punishment,  after  trial.  During  trial,  witnesses as per list will give witness who may be called  and trial conducted.

Sd/- Superintendent of Police(D)

Distt. SAS Nagar 14.02.2013”

14. The  matter  came  up  before  the  High  Court  for  final  hearing  on  

21.02.2013 and it was of the view that the SIT was constituted to nullify the  

enquiry and report of DIG (Crime).   It observed that it was mandatory duty  

1

Page 12

of  the  State  to  implement  the  report  submitted  by  DIG  (Crime)  and  it  

therefore directed the State to act in terms of said report within three months.  

The High Court was also pleased to direct that Respondent no.1 be paid an  

amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation, initially by the State which  

could  then  be  recovered  from  the  erring  officers  after  fixing  the  

responsibility.   With these directions the High  Court  disposed  of   the  

petition.  The  Appellants  being  aggrieved  filed  the  instant  petition  for  

Special  Leave to  Appeal.  While  issuing notice this  Court  was  pleased to  

direct  that  pending  consideration  of  the  matter,  the  judgment  and  order  

passed by the High Court shall remain stayed.   It was submitted in support of  

the petition that the order of the High Court was based on the report of the  

DIG, which report itself had recommended further investigation and thus the  

SIT was rightly constituted and that once final report under section 173 of  

Cr.P.C. was filed, the court could only have directed further investigation in  

terms of Section 173 (8) of Criminal Procedure Code and could not have  

passed the instant directions.  On behalf of Respondent no.1 it was submitted  

that the State was not justified in constituting the SIT, more particularly after  

the first one was disbanded and that in the face of the order dated 24.04.2012  

challan under section 173 could and ought not to have been filed.

1

Page 13

15. Though rival contentions have been raised in pleadings in support of  

the respective theories, one suggesting that the incident in question was an  

accident while the other projecting it to be a murder, we refrain from entering  

into such factual arena, lest it may prejudice the interest of any of the parties.  

We are however deeply distressed by the manner in which the SITs were  

constituted in the present case and the way the matter has progressed.  The  

following aspects  need a specific mention:-   (A)  When the application of  

Respondent no.1 was being processed by the office of the High Court and  

being placed on the judicial side, the State Government on its own, entrusted  

the  matter  to  DIG  to  conduct  independent  investigation.   With  such  

independent  investigation being undertaken,  the High Court  was naturally  

persuaded to wait for its outcome and not to go ahead with the issue whether  

the investigation be entrusted  to  CBI or  not.   (B) Once  that  independent  

investigation had culminated in the report,  the record does not indicate in  

what circumstances and under what authority SIT was constituted.  It was  

complete misreading of the report of the DIG.  The DIG had clearly said that  

after registering the case under Section 302, investigation be handed over to  

independent and impartial agency.  However, no such case was registered.  

(C)  The State had rightly disbanded the SIT observing that constituting such  

SIT  without  any  rhyme  or  reason  was  of  no  avail  and  ought  not  to  be  

1

Page 14

undertaken unless the High Court had directed so.  It is not clear why and  

how despite  such clear  direction to disband,  the SIT could go ahead and  

finalize its report.  (D)  The subsequent order dated 24.04.2012 of the High  

Court clearly settled the position by directing the State not to file the challan  

on the basis of the report submitted by the SIT and in clear terms stated that  

the  investigating  agency  could  proceed  on  the  basis  of  the  report  dated  

27.12.2011  of  the  DIG.   It  further  directed  the  authorities  to  act  in  

compliance of  its  order.  Record again does not  indicate what steps were  

taken  by  the  authorities  from 24.04.2012  and  why  investigation  was  not  

conducted  on  the  basis  of  the  report  submitted  by  the  Deputy  Inspector  

General.  (E) In spite of the disbanding of the earlier SIT and the order of the  

High Court dated 24.04.2012, the matter was again considered on the basis of  

the report of the SIT itself, leading to the constitution of second SIT under  

the supervision of same Shri Kunwar Vijay Partap Singh.  Such constitution  

of the SIT under his supervision was promptly brought to the notice of the  

High Court.  (F) However soon thereafter, the SIT was reconstituted leaving  

out said Shri Kunwar Vijay Partap Singh.  While reconstituting such SIT,  

copy  of  the  order  was  not  marked  to  Respondent  no.1  nor  was  this  

development brought to the notice of the High Court.  (G) Finally, in the face  

of clear directions in the order dated 24.04.2012, challan under section 173  

1

Page 15

on the basis of the report of such reconstituted SIT was filed on 14.02.2013.  

No permission of the High Court was taken nor was it so intimated.

16. In  the  circumstances,  in  our  considered  view  the  High  Court  was  

completely  justified  in  leaving  out  the  reports  of  the  SIT  from  its  

consideration and directing the State Government to act in terms of the report  

dated 27.12.2011 of Shri Kunwar Vijay Partap Singh, DIG.   Constituting the  

SIT on the premise that the DGP did not agree with the report of the DIG or  

that the DIG himself had recommended further investigation, was completely  

incorrect.  Once the matter was in seisin of the High Court, nothing could and  

ought to have been undertaken without its express leave.  The State therefore  

had rightly disbanded such SIT.  It  is  inexplicable how the SIT could go  

ahead and submit  the report,  which then led to constitution of  fresh SIT.  

Here also there was no fairness in action.  Initial constitution of the fresh SIT  

was with same DIG in command but was reconstituted without bringing such  

fact to the notice of the High Court.  And the last straw was filing of the  

challan  under  Section 173 Cr.P.C.    It  was  incumbent  for  the authorities  

concerned, to act in terms of the report of the DIG as directed by the High  

Court in its order dated 24.04.2012 rather than seek to nullify the effect of  

that order.   Affirming the view taken by the High Court, we dismiss the  

1

Page 16

present appeal and while doing so, deem it appropriate to pass the following  

directions:

(A) The challan dated 14.02.2013 filed by the Superintendent of Police,  

District SAS Nagar is held illegal and improper and stands withdrawn from  

the record of the concerned case.

(B) The crime shall be registered under section 302 IPC in keeping with  

the  report  dated  27.12.2011  of  Shri  Kunwar  Vijay  Pratap  Singh,  DIG  

(Crimes) and further investigation shall be undertaken in terms thereof.

(C) The SITs as constituted are held invalidly constituted and the reports  

dated 01.03.2012 and 29.01.2013 stand set aside.

(D) We direct the concerned Superintendent of Police to conduct thorough  

investigation into the matter.  Such investigation must be completely fair and  

transparent and shall be free from any interference.  We expect the concerned  

officer to rise to the occasion and do his job well.

(E) It is left to the concerned Magistrate to consider whether any further  

investigation is called for,  and if  so,  in which direction,  as and when the  

occasion so demands.

(F) Respondent no.1 shall be paid Rs.2,50,000/- by way of compensation  

instead of Rs.50,000/- as directed by the High Court.  Such compensation  

shall first be paid by the State and after fixing the responsibility regarding  

1

Page 17

officials who were responsible for delaying the process,  recover the same  

from such officials.

(G) We request the Chief Secretary of the State to inquire into the matter,  

the way and the manner in which it was dealt with at various stages and more  

particularly with regard to items A to G mentioned in para 15 hereinabove  

and submit a report to this Court in a sealed cover within two months from  

today.

17. Before we part,  we must  record that  we shall  not be taken to have  

expressed any opinion as regards merits of the matter.  We have dealt with  

the propriety of constitution of SITs and having set aside the reports thereof,  

tried to implement the logical consequence and the order of the High Court  

dated 24.04.2012.  The matter shall and must be considered on its own merits  

at every stage.

18. We thus dismiss the present appeal in the aforesaid terms.  The matter  

shall  however be listed after three months or soon after the receipt of the  

Report of the Chief Secretary as stated above for further directions, if any.

……..………………….J. (Anil R. Dave)

1

Page 18

…………..…………….J.  (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi December 04, 2014

1