Site icon SCC Times

[Honour Killing] P&H HC | “Culpable failure to supervise investigation”; HC slams police for laxity in investigation, issues detailed directions for effective dealing of Honour Killing cases

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Arun Kumar Tyagi, J., while addressing bail application of accused in a case pertaining to Honour Killing, stated it to be a,

“Glaring example how the directions given by Supreme Court are flouted, how the necessity of protection to the couple marrying against the wishes of their family members is ignored.”

The brief facts of the case were that the deceased-Dharambir married to one Sunita against her family’s wish. Pursuant to which the couple were abducted and subsequently, the dead body of Dharambir was recovered from Sidhmukh Canal after two days. Investigation revealed the same two be the outcome of honour killing by the family members of Sunita.

Noticing that the case involved allegations of honour killing of Dharambir by persons whose honour was allegedly subjected to disgrace by the deceased by performing marriage with their relative Sunita Rani, the Bench referred to the decision of Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475, wherein the Supreme Court had directed the administration/police authorities throughout the country to “see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or interreligious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.” Again in Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2011)6 SCC 396, the Supreme Court had held,

“In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation. This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilized behaviour. All persons who are planning to perpetrate ‘honour’ killings should know that the gallows await them.”

 Similar views were held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court itself in Civil Writ Petition No.6717 of 2009 titled as ‘Asha and another Vs. State of Haryana, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 12746

Adverting to the disturbing features of the case and adumbrating upon the directions required to be issued for preventing abuse of process and securing ends of justice, the Bench held that since the police had knowledge regarding marriage of Sunita with Dharambir as they had filed a protection petition which was later withdrawn by them, the police was expected to take immediate steps for their rescue on receipt of information regarding their abduction. However, even though Sunita had named the persons with whom her husband Dharambir was last seen, yet no raid had been conducted to arrest the persons named or to join them in investigation for ascertaining the whereabouts of Dharambir. The Bench expressed,

“The present case is a glaring example how…the police tries to understate the offences, delay the investigation, shield the accused by its inaction and still claim that there was no laxity or delay in investigation of the case by it and how the higher police officers, who do not even know that the case falls in the category of honour killing and they are required to follow the directions given by the Supreme Court, look the other way round and ignore the deficiencies surfacing during investigation with almost culpable failure to appropriately supervise/monitor the investigation and take appropriate remedial action to discharge their statutory obligations.”  

Accordingly, the Court directed the Director-General of Police, Haryana to conduct an enquiry into the matter and take appropriate departmental action against the defaulting Police officers/officials.

In the backdrop of above, noticing flagrant violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court and this Court, delay or laxity in proper investigation and collection of evidence available and delay in conclusion of trial and for preventing abuse of process and securing ends of justice and, the Bench issued directions as under:

Directions to State Governments

  1. State government (Punjab and Haryana) and U.T. Chandigarh Administration were directed to appoint Committees consisting of Home Secretary, Finance Secretary, Additional Director General of Police, Legal Remembrancer and Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authorities, Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh at the State level within one month to examine issues of compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court and this Court and submit their reports with their recommendations within three months.
  2. Governments were directed to consider recommendations so made and take policy based action for implementing them.
  3. The Committee was directed to periodically monitor the issue of compliance with such directions in the States.

Directions to the police

 The Director Generals of Police, Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh were directed to

The Director Generals of Police were also directed to issue instructions to the Commissioners of Police/Senior Superintendents of Police/ Superintendents of Police for ensuring that,

 Directions for expeditious trial

 Directions to the State Legal Services Authorities:-

The State Legal Services Authorities, Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh were directed:

Hence, Haryana State Legal Services Authority was also directed to take appropriate steps for award of compensation to legal heirs of Dharambir within three months. The accused were granted regular bail on the ground of parity as the co-accused had been granted bail, and the trial was likely to take time due to number of prosecution witnesses to be examined and due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19. [Ravi Kumar v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-23537-2020, decided on 31-09-2021]


Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Appearance by:

For the Petitioners: Advocate Aditya Sanghi, Advocate Vikas Bishnoi,

For State of Haryana: Deepak Sabharwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana

For State of Punjab: P.S. Walia, Asstt. A.G., Punjab

For U.T. of Chandigarh: Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Exit mobile version