No high court reprieve for 12 Punjab cops in 1992 disappearance of six of family
Ajay Sura | TNN | Mar 25, 2019, 09:19 IST
Representative imageCHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has refused to quash the CBI FIR and charge sheet filed against 12 Punjab police personnel for disappearance of six members of a Tarn Taran family during the period of militancy in Punjab.
The 12 accused, including Gurmeet Singh who retired as senior superintendent of police (SSP), are facing prosecution at Patiala's special CBI court. Then Tarn Taran SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu, accused of committing atrocities during militancy, was among the accused in the case. Sandhu's name, however, was dropped from the case after his death.
The CBI had filed an FIR after Surjit Kaur, a resident of Pandori Ramana village in Punjab's Tarn Taran district, had filed a habeas corpus petition before the high court and sought directions to find whereabouts of her husband and five other family members.
Disappearance of six of family: Cops face prosecution
According to the petitioner, her husband Sant Charan Singh and five relatives — Kesar Singh, Gurdev Singh, Mejha Singh, Gurmej Singh and Balwinder Singh — were missing since August 1992. She alleged the six men had gone missing after a police team led by Gurmeet Singh took them away after an early morning raid.
The high court directed the CBI to probe the case after which the agency registered an FIR on May 30, 1997 under sections 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 344 (wrongful confinement for 10 or more days), and 346 (wrongful confinement in secret) of the Indian Penal Code.
In August 2001, the CBI filed a charge sheet against Gurmeet Singh and other cops before the special CBI court in Patiala.
In 2016, Gurmeet and other police personnel against whom the CBI had filed its charge sheet approached the high court and sought quashing of FIR on the grounds that it (high court) in its 1997 orders had only asked the CBI to probe the case and submit its report before the high court. They argued that the high court had not issued directions to register an FIR and prosecute them. Therefore, they said that the FIR registered by the CBI as part of this petition was liable to be quashed.
Contesting the claim, CBI counsel Sumeet Goel argued that earlier the accused police personnel had filed a petition for quashing of the FIR and that was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Now, after a gap of many years again these petitions have been filed, which are not maintainable, Goel submitted.
After hearing both the parties, Justice Inderjit Singh held that in this case, the high court was monitoring the case related to missing six members of a family and the inquiry was specifically entrusted to the CBI.
“In no way, it can be held that this court has not entrusted the CBI to conduct the investigation. Rather, the investigation was conducted directly under the supervision of this court which was monitoring the disputed matter regarding missing of six members of a family etc. Therefore, I find no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed,” observed Justice Singh in orders released last week.
With these orders, the accused cops would now face prosecution in the special CBI court Patiala. As of now, there was a stay on framing of charges since August 8, 2016 in this case.
The 12 accused, including Gurmeet Singh who retired as senior superintendent of police (SSP), are facing prosecution at Patiala's special CBI court. Then Tarn Taran SSP Ajit Singh Sandhu, accused of committing atrocities during militancy, was among the accused in the case. Sandhu's name, however, was dropped from the case after his death.
The CBI had filed an FIR after Surjit Kaur, a resident of Pandori Ramana village in Punjab's Tarn Taran district, had filed a habeas corpus petition before the high court and sought directions to find whereabouts of her husband and five other family members.
Disappearance of six of family: Cops face prosecution
According to the petitioner, her husband Sant Charan Singh and five relatives — Kesar Singh, Gurdev Singh, Mejha Singh, Gurmej Singh and Balwinder Singh — were missing since August 1992. She alleged the six men had gone missing after a police team led by Gurmeet Singh took them away after an early morning raid.
The high court directed the CBI to probe the case after which the agency registered an FIR on May 30, 1997 under sections 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 344 (wrongful confinement for 10 or more days), and 346 (wrongful confinement in secret) of the Indian Penal Code.
In August 2001, the CBI filed a charge sheet against Gurmeet Singh and other cops before the special CBI court in Patiala.
In 2016, Gurmeet and other police personnel against whom the CBI had filed its charge sheet approached the high court and sought quashing of FIR on the grounds that it (high court) in its 1997 orders had only asked the CBI to probe the case and submit its report before the high court. They argued that the high court had not issued directions to register an FIR and prosecute them. Therefore, they said that the FIR registered by the CBI as part of this petition was liable to be quashed.
Contesting the claim, CBI counsel Sumeet Goel argued that earlier the accused police personnel had filed a petition for quashing of the FIR and that was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Now, after a gap of many years again these petitions have been filed, which are not maintainable, Goel submitted.
After hearing both the parties, Justice Inderjit Singh held that in this case, the high court was monitoring the case related to missing six members of a family and the inquiry was specifically entrusted to the CBI.
“In no way, it can be held that this court has not entrusted the CBI to conduct the investigation. Rather, the investigation was conducted directly under the supervision of this court which was monitoring the disputed matter regarding missing of six members of a family etc. Therefore, I find no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed,” observed Justice Singh in orders released last week.
With these orders, the accused cops would now face prosecution in the special CBI court Patiala. As of now, there was a stay on framing of charges since August 8, 2016 in this case.
All Comments ()+^ Back to Top
Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.
HIDE