Inderpreet Chadha suicide: Prior notice to former DGP before arrest won’t affect police power, says Punjab and Haryana HC

Chadha, son of Chief Khalsa Diwan president Charanjit Singh Chadha, shot himself on January 3, 2018, days after a sleaze video purportedly showing his father with a woman principal had gone viral. Chadha had reportedly mentioned Chattopadhyaya in one of his diary notes, leading to an investigation against the former DGP.

While hearing the case, the court also observed that “limited relief of prior notice before arrest sought herein, if granted at this stage, would not materially prejudice/hinder the exercise of powers of police to investigate the case or mean in any unfair advantage to the petitioner”.

A case was lodged against Chattopadhyaya on January 3, 2018, at the Airport police station in Amritsar in connection with the Inderpreet Chadha suicide case. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Chadha’s son Prabhjeet Singh, who alleged abetment to suicide.

The latest order was passed by the bench of Justice Arun Monga. A detailed order was released on the High Court website on Wednesday.

On September 15, 2023, while disposing of a suo-motu case on the drugs, the High Court had vacated a stay on the investigation operating in favour of Chattopadhyaya. The court had made it clear that the stay granted in favour of Chattopadhyaya at that point of time (on April 6, 2018), was only an interim measure adopted due to the impression given to the co-ordinate bench that he was being hounded by his seniors.

The petitioner, Chattopadhyaya, thus moved the High Court through his counsel, advocate R Kartikeya, seeking protection of his own rights, fearing that he may be falsely implicated in a case at the behest of certain influential people or senior police officials with oblique motives.

He sought for seven days advance notice, in case his life and liberty are intended to be impinged in the case registered under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 384 (extortion), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. He also sought for stay on the investigation of the FIR.

Chattopadhyaya’s counsel further argued, “He has been falsely dragged in the impugned FIR, at the behest of certain senior officer, to desist him at the relevant time, from holding an independent and fair inquiry into the nexus between the law enforcing agencies and the drug peddlers, wherein the names of senior police officers were also emerging.”

“The petitioner is not even named in the FIR and is thus innocent. His arrest without a reasonable prior notice would mean huge humiliation and harassment, mar his social image and deprive him of his liberty and dignity,” he further argued.

Appearing for Punjab, Advocate General Gurminder Singh, along with Additional Advocate General Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, on the other hand, argued that even though the petitioner is not named in the FIR, but admittedly, his name has figured in the course of investigation and also the investigation qua the petitioner remained stayed for over five years under the orders of the division bench of this court.

Meanwhile, on hearing the plea of Chattopadhyaya, the Bench of Justice Monga while perusing the several diary entries of Chadha, (described by the prosecution as suicide notes), said, “True, that if as a result of petitioner’s interrogation and/or other investigation, if the investigative agency so feels, then he can be immediately arrested without a prior notice. Equally true, that the petitioner, as of now, is not named in the FIR. But the fact remains that an accusing finger has been pointed against him in the diary entry dated February 2, 2016 of the deceased as reproduced above (described by the prosecution as suicide notes).”

Justice Monga asserted that though it has been argued by Advocate General that granting any interim indulgence at this stage by the Court would amount to giving blanket bail to the petitioner. Justice Monda said, “However, I am unable to persuade myself with his argument. Pertinently, neither is there any prayer in the petition asking for any absolute restraint on the respondents and/ or SIT or any other police officials against arrest of the petitioner come what may, nor is this Court passing any such order.”

On the objection of the Punjab Advocate General claiming that the petitioner is not letting the investigation proceed further by not responding to the questionnaire, which was served to him in 2018, Justice Monga added that “the petitioner cannot be faulted for deliberately not co-operating with the investigating team, when the investigation against him was stayed by virtue of interim order passed by Division Bench”.

The Bench thus directed Chattopadhyaya to forthwith join the investigation and respond to the questionnaire positively within a period of two weeks, as well as, any other questions that the SIT may ask him, in the course of the investigation.

While parting, the bench said that it will be open to the petitioner, depending upon further developments in the case, to seek stay of the investigation and quashing the FIR ibid qua him and/or any other appropriate relief in accordance with law.