1593687950_RAAgrY_SupremeCourtofIndia.jpeg 
The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Punjab against Judgment dated 09.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the Kotkapura violence cases.
Photo Credit :
The matter pertains to the alleged violence in Kotkapura, Punjab on 14.10.2015 in response to the incidents of sacrilege of the Guru Granth Sahib between June 2015 to October 2015. The Hon’ble High Court had in the said Judgment dated 09.04.2021 quashed the Report under Section 173 Cr. PC filed by Mr. Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh, IPS, acting as the de facto head of the SIT tasked with the investigation of the alleged violence.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Punjab against Judgment dated 09.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the Kotkapura violence cases.
The High Court in its Judgment dated 09.04.2021 quashed the charge-sheet filed by Mr. Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh, IPS, and directed that investigation into the said alleged violence be conducted afresh by a newly appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Punjab Police.
Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. appeared for the State of Punjab. Mr. Gurdeep Singh, the then SHO of Kotkapura who has been arrayed as Respondent No. 1 in the said petition was represented by former Solicitor General of India Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Adv. and a team from Karanjawala & Co. Advocates led by Ms. Nandini Gore and Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Senior Partners.
The matter pertains to the alleged violence in Kotkapura, Punjab on 14.10.2015 in response to the incidents of sacrilege of the Guru Granth Sahib between June 2015 to October 2015. The Hon’ble High Court had in the said Judgment dated 09.04.2021 quashed the Report under Section 173 Cr. PC filed by Mr. Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh, IPS, acting as the de facto head of the SIT tasked with the investigation of the alleged violence.
The Hon’ble High Court in its Judgment dated 09.04.2021 had held that the Report under Section 173 Cr. PC filed by Mr. Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh, IPS was in the nature of hypothesis and not based on material or evidence. It was held that Mr. Singh had conducted the investigation in a perfunctory manner and had started the investigation based on FIR No. 129 dated 07.08.2018 (which was filed after a lapse of almost 3 years), which was subsequent in time and sequence to FIR No. 192 dated 14.10.2015, which was filed by Mr. Gurdeep Singh in his capacity as the SHO of Kotkapura. It was further held that Mr. Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh, IPS failed to examine injured police officers, civil administrative authorities, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) (who was the duty magistrate in Kotkapura at the time of the incident) and had filed a report under Section 173 Cr. PC calling the police firing unprovoked. The statements of some police officers taken by Mr. Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh, IPS were also held to be contrary to their previous affidavits before Inquiry Commission. The Hon’ble High Court had observed that the integrity of the investigation stood demolished on account of the said manipulative exercise at the behest of Mr. Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh, IPS in the name of investigation.
When the matter came up for hearing before a bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, at the outset, submitted that the State of Punjab had not challenged the basis on which the Hon’ble High Court quashed the Reports which were presented under Section 173 of the Cr.PC. in FIR No. 129 dated 07.08.2018 and FIR No. 192 dated 14.10.2015. He further submitted that the Hon’ble High Court had afforded a well-reasoned Order outlining the apparent bias and malicious manner in which the SIT, tasked with the said investigation, investigated the matter and that the said reasoned basis as outlined by the Hon’ble High Court in the Judgment dated 09.04.2021 had not been challenged by the State. He submitted that Respondent No. 1 was the SHO of the concerned Police Station in the jurisdiction of which the violence occurred and that he was being punished at the behest of Respondent No. 3. He submitted that the record would reflect that Respondent No. 1 executed his duties with utmost responsibility and followed the directions of the SDM, who was the concerned Duty Magistrate in the town.
The Hon’ble Bench observed that the present matter was a serious issue and that the same required to be examined in greater detail. As such, the Hon’ble Bench indicated that it was inclined to issue a notice in the matter returnable within 4 weeks. The Bench further observed that it was only issuing notice in the matter at the moment and was not interfering with the investigation being conducted by the newly appointed SIT.