BALBIR SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

                              [2009] 8 S.C.R. 489
     T




                                BALBIR SINGH                              A
                                      v.
                        STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
                      (Criminal Appeal No. 963 of 2009)

                                 MAY 8, 2009
                                                                          B
             [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUNKUNDAKAM
     f.
                             SHARMA, JJ.]

               FIR - Cross version - Investigation ..:. FIR by first
          informant - Cross version in FIR by petitioner's husband -      c
          Petitioner seeking investigation of cross version in FIR and
..        entrustment of investigation to independent agency - On
          investigation, case of petitioner's husband found to be false
          - Direction by High Court that police was not required to
          register separate FIR into cross version set up but was to      D
          present entire investigation before the court to decide as to
          which version was correct - On appeal, held: Order of High
          Court modified - Direction issued to decide the case of
          infonnant who lodged FIR at first instance.
                                                                          E
              .CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
          No. 963 of 2009.
                                                                              ,·'
              From the Judgment & Order dated 28.04.2007 of the High
          Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc.
          No. 33291-M of 2006.                                            F

             U.U. Lalit, Nitin Sangra, Prashant Kumar and Ap & J
          Chambers for the Appellant.



-    •
              K.K. Khurana, AAG, H.S. Phoolka A.K. Mehta, Kuldip
          Singh, Sunita Tiwari, A.P. Pandey and R.K. Pandey for the
          Respondents.
                                                                          G



              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                                      489                                 H
    490      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009] a s.C.R.
                                                                              '"
                                                                          ~

A         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

        2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
   learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
   Respondent No.2 in the present appeal filed a petition seeking
  investigation of the cross version in FIR 43 dated 6.2.2006
B
   registered at Police Station, City Abohar, in relation to the
  offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section
   34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and for
  entrusting the investigation of the same to an independent
c agency.   The aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of
  statement made by the present appellant. The petitloher before
  the High Court i.e. present respondent No.2 is the wife of
  Gaganjit Singh, who had two brothers, namely, Gurdeep Singh
  and Gurjit Singh. Though, according to Balbir Singh, first
  informant, Gurjit Singh was killed in the emergency ward of Civil
D Hospital, Abohar, by a group of people which had come from
  the Truck Union, yet Gaganjit Singh claimed that his brother
  Gurjit Singh was killed by Balbir Singh, first informant and others
  on 6.2.2006 at 4.30 P.M. when Gaganjit Singh was first
  attacked and given injuries at the Truck Union and while being
E removed to the hospital by Gurjit Singh and others and had
  reached in front of the hospital where Balbir Singh was standing
  while carrying a pistol in his hand, which he used to fire at Gurjit
  Singh. As a result of the same, said Gurjit Singh died. The
  statement of Gaganjit Singh was recorded on 7.2.2006 when
F he was admitted in Civil Hospital, Malout, but in spite of the
  same, no action was taken against Balbir Singh and others for
  the murder of Gurjit Singh and for causing injuries to Gaganjit
  Singh. Instead final report under Section 173 of the Code of
  Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') was submitted
G against Gaganjit Singh and lnderjit Singh for the murder of Baljit
  Singh. Therefore, it was prayed that appropriate legal action
  be taken into the cross version based on the statement of
                                                                         ..    •
  Gaganjit Singh and keeping in view the partisan attitude of the
  local police which was acting at the instance of local M.L.A.,
H the  investigation of the said cross-version be entrusted to an
      BALBIR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.                   491
                [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
    independent agency.                                                  A

          During investigation of the case the version given by
    Gaganjit Singh, the husband of respondent No.2 was found to
    be false. No injury was received by said Gaganjit at Truck
    Union, Abohar. In fact, it was Gaganjit Singh who had caused
                                                                         8
    fire arm injury to Baljit Singh, brother of the present appellant-
    complainant of the case. After hearing the parties the High
    Court directed as follows:

              "Although, the police was not required to register
        separate FIR into the cross version set up by Gaganjit C
        Singh but the minimum it could do was to present the entire
       ~vestigation before the Court and only then the Court could
        decide as to which of the two versions was correct. The
        police on its own could not decide that the murder of Gurjit
        Singh and causing of injuries to Gaganjit Singh was in the D
        exercise of right of self defence of person by the
        complainant party. However, in the given circumstances the
        Court finds that the police ought to have registered an FIR
        against the offenders in relation to the murder of Gurjit
        Singh and causing of injuries to Gaganjit Singh so that if . E
        the same was to be later on cancelled, after its due
        investigation, the police would be required to submit the
        cancellation report in the appropriate court and obtain its
        order."

         3. It is the stand of the appellant that the direction issued
                                                                         F
    to register the FIR on the basis of statements of Gaganjit Singh
    recorded on 7.2.2006 and proceed with the case in
    accordance with law is not sustainable. It is pointed out that in
    the FIR 43 of 2006 there was mention of incident as well as
    the retaliation. The statement of Gaganjit Singh was recorded G
    on 7.2.2006 wherein he took the plea that the firing was by the
    appellant and Gurjit Singh had died. No FIR was lodged
    regarding the cross version. Charges have been framed on
    15.6.2006. The complaint was filed by Gaganjit Singh on
    21.8.2006. Cognizance .has been taken qua the accusations · H


I
   492       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 8 S.C.R.


A and not in respect of the controversy.

       4. In peculiar circumstances, we dispose of the appeal in
  modification of the impugned order with the direction that the
  complaint case shall be taken to its logical end. It needs no
  indication that the concerned Court shall deal with the matter
8
  on the basis of evidence laid before it. We make it clear that
  we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.

          5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

   N.J.                                      Appeal disposed of.


                                                         -


                                                                    -




                                                                    •