The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday rapped Chandigarh Police for apparently being overactive in a stale civil matter despite incidents of “open firing” in the city.
The admonition came as Justice Jagmohan Bansal directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to examine the role of police officials “irrespective of their rank” and other parties before submitting a report to the court.
Justice Bansal passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by Canadian national Sarabjit Singh Gill to permit him to join the investigation through virtual/electronic means after claiming that he had already cooperated with the probe.
He was also seeking directions to the Union Territory administration to place on record the lookout circular allegedly issued against him and permit him to return to Canada.
Appearing before Justice Bansal’s Bench on his behalf, senior advocate P.S. Ahluwalia, along with counsel Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Keerat Dhillon, and Anish Kansal, had contended that the FIR in the matter was based upon documents relating to a Sector 2 property executed way back in April 975 and September 1999.
The Bench was told that Gill had arrived in India on February 2 due to his mother’s critical illness. She later died on February 22 and the bhog ceremony was held in Chandigarh on February 28. During this period, the Economic Offences Wing, Chandigarh, issued a summons to him in connection with the FIR registered against his mother and sister on May 20, last year, for cheating and other offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
Gill claimed he was restrained from travelling abroad when he reached IGI Airport, New Delhi, on March 5 for his scheduled return journey to Canada.
He thereafter submitted representations dated March 8 and March 18 seeking permission to travel overseas, citing the medical condition of his wife.
The petitioner further told the court that he appeared before the investigating officer on March 11, 12, 14 and again on March 24 pursuant to a summons issued by the police.
Petitioner alleges FIR despite earlier civil litigation
Ahluwalia and Patwalia argued that the police registered the FIR at the behest of a property dealer and the complainant, despite orders by different Courts on the civil side and dismissal of proceedings initiated under Section 156(3) CrPC.
The petitioner contended that the dispute related to property documents executed in 1975 and 1999 and had already been examined by different courts.
They added that the police officials came to serve a summons while he was in the Gurudwara to perform the last rites of his mother, showing haste and connivance.
The matter, as such, was required to be investigated by an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Recording concern over the manner of investigation, Justice Bansal observed: “There is open firing in different sectors of Chandigarh; however, the police seem to be overactive in a stale civil matter. There prima facie seems to be oblique and mala fide purposes. The matter needs to be examined by an independent agency.”
CBI to examine role of police officials
During the hearing, Special Public Prosecutor Akashdeep Singh, appearing for the CBI, submitted that a preliminary inquiry could first be conducted and a report placed before the court.
Accepting the submission, Justice Bansal ordered: “The matter is referred to CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry with respect to the role of all the parties and submit its report. The CBI, while conducting a preliminary inquiry, would also examine the role of Police Officials irrespective of their rank.”
The matter has been adjourned to September 7.
