Police personnel “surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant by its very nature bears no reasonable nexus to the duties of maintaining public order or effecting lawful arrest,” the Supreme Court observed in its April 29 order, dismissing the plea of nine Punjab policemen, challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order of May 20, 2019 where it refused to quash the murder case against them in a 10-year-old alleged fake encounter case.
“The availability of official firearms, or even an erroneous official objective, cannot transmute acts wholly outside the colour of authority into those ‘done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty’,” the detail SC order uploaded recently reads.
According to the case, on June 16, 2015, a police team, travelling in a Bolero, an Innova and a Verna, intercepted a white Hyundai i20 on the Verka-Batala road in Amritsar, Punjab.
After giving a brief warning, they allegedly opened fire on the car using pistols and AK-47 rifles, killing driver Mukhjit Singh, alias Mukhha.
The complainant (then riding a motorcycle nearby) and another witness claimed to have seen the shooting and raised an alarm that drew locals to the spot.
The complaint alleged that after the firing incident, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Parmpal Singh arrived at the scene with additional personnel and ordered the removal of the vehicle’s registration plate.
Hearing the matter, the division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta restored the charge of “destruction of evidence” against DCP Parmpal Singh, observing “actions taken under the guise of official duty, but aimed at obstructing justice, cannot be deemed related to police duty”.
The court also clarified that “no prior sanction is required to prosecute DCP Parmpal Singh and the other police officials for their alleged actions”.
The bench rejected the submission of eight police personnel that cognisance of the complaint against them cannot be taken as it was barred under Section 197 of CrPC under which prior permission was needed to prosecute public servants.
“An act that is per se directed to erasing a potential exhibit, if ultimately proved, cannot be regarded as reasonably connected with any bona-fide police duty. The test consistently applied by this Court is whether the impugned act bears a direct and inseparable nexus to official functions. We believe that where the very accusation is suppression of evidence, the nexus is absent on the face of the record. In such a situation the bar of Section 197 CrPC is not attracted, and sanction is not a condition precedent to cognizance. The cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice as held by this Court in Gauri Shankar Prasad v State of Bihar,” the SC order reads.
“The part of the impugned order of the High Court dated 20.05.2019 that set aside Criminal Complaint No. 112 of 2016 and the summoning order of 17.08.2017 in respect of Deputy Commissioner of Police Parampal Singh, is set aside. Proceedings against the respondent stand restored, to be continued in accordance with law,” the order reads.
In the separate petition by the rest of the eight officials, the court said, “The contention that the death, even if established, resulted from a mistaken identity and therefore attracts no culpability is a matter of defence; whether the petitioners acted in good faith, or whether they fired at all, are questions of fact that can only be resolved on evidence at trial. At the stage of summoning or of framing of charges the Court is not expected to weigh the probative value of the materials in microscopic detail but merely to see whether the facts, taken at their face, disclose the commission of an offence. The order of the Magistrate summoning the petitioners, and the subsequent order of the Sessions Court framing charges, proceed on an appreciation that there exists prima facie evidence of concerted firearm assault. No error of law or perversity of approach is shown. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.”
After the victim’s family reached the court, Parmpal Singh was summoned into the case.
Besides, Parmpal Singh, eight other police personnel had challenged the HC order of May 20, 2019, wherein the court refused to quash the case registered against them, in the Supreme Court.
Human rights activist and lawyer Sarabjit Singh Verka said, “The SC order was uploaded on June 15. The order has opened the doors for justice the victim’s family has been seeking for a decade.”
G Nageswara Rao, then Inspector General of Police (Crime), Punjab, headed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) inquiry into FIR No. 242 dated June 16, 2015, registered under section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
Based on the findings, the SIT concluded that the allegations made in the FIR against the deceased, Mukhtjit Singh, alias Mukha, relating to offences under IPC section 307 and the Arms Act, were not substantiated.
Instead, the SIT recommended filing a police report under section 173(2) of the CrPC for offences punishable under Section 304, read with Section 34 of the IPC, against several police officials.
These include SI Ramesh Kumar (No. 1382/GSP), ASI Joginder Singh (No. 2639/ASR), HC Ranbir Singh (No. 821/ASR), HC Rajesh Kumar (No. 3564/ASR), HC Sandeep Kumar (No. 2176/ASR), HC Jasbir Singh (No. 669/ASR), C-II Navjot Singh (No. 2895/ASR), and Ct. Satwinderjit Singh (No. 3894/ASR).
The report also mentioned that the prosecution would require necessary sanctions under Section 197 of the CrPC.
Additionally, the SIT noted procedural violations and recommended departmental action against other officers.
“Ct. Love Kumar (No. 3568/ASR) was found to have allowed HC Rajesh Kumar to use his issued AK-47 rifle (No. 88320625) during the incident. Both officers were recommended for departmental action for this lapse. Furthermore, MHC Baljit Singh (No. 70/ASR) was found to have permitted the misuse of a Malkhana vehicle (PB-08-BP-4613) by SI Ramesh Kumar. Similarly, HC Kanwaljit Singh (No. 1957/ASR), in charge of the Cyber/Computer Cell, misused another official vehicle, a Verna car (PB-33A-7979). Departmental action was recommended in both these cases,” the SIT recommended.
The bench rejected the submission of eight police personnel that cognisance of the complaint against them cannot be taken as it was barred under Section 197 of CrPC under which prior permission was needed to prosecute public servants.
(File Photo/ Representational) 
Share
