Uttaranchal High Court: By the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner challenged FIR, lodged on 28-3-2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station, Nanakmatta, Udham Singh Nagar. Rakesh Thapliyal, J., noted that the investigation was still on going and for the same, the custodial interrogation was necessary, particularly when the open firing on Baba Tarsem Singh was caused by the two shooters who came from the State of Punjab and stayed in Bhai Mardana Yatri Niwas, Nanakmatta (‘Sarai’) for 10 days which was headed by petitioner, therefore, at this stage, the Court opined that any interference with the investigation was unwarranted. The Court thus dismissed the petition being devoid of any merit.
Background
On 28-3-2024, two Sikh persons opened fire on Jathedar Baba Shri Tarsem Singh, the Dera Parmukh of Dera Kar Sewa Shri Nanakmatta Sahib and immediately after this incident with the help of sewadars, Tarsem Singh was brought to the hospital where doctors declared him dead. Both these shooters stayed in Sarai, situated in the premises of Gurudwara and these persons came in Sarai without any personal vehicle and when they were residing in Sarai, no arms and weapon were seen with them and the motorcycle and weapon used at the time of incident was supplied to them by some local person, by making a conspiracy.
Petitioner seeks to quash FIR contending that no specific allegation was made against him and even no specific role was assigned and the allegation against him was completely speculative in nature and his role was found to be suspicious and apart from this, there was nothing in FIR which could disclose his role as to how he was responsible for commission of the crime. Petitioner submitted that he was a retired IAS officer who was unanimously elected as President of the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Nanakmatta Sahib.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that petitioner used to post certain messages on social media to intense, instigate and hate mongering posts on social media which had now been deleted and this suspected his conduct. The Court stated that the instructions placed on record by the Government Advocate revealed that petitioner used to spread hatred against Tarsem Singh through various other means/platforms.
The Court also stated that the said instructions revealed that during the course of investigation, two dreaded criminals who opened fire in broad day light at Tarsem Singh, stayed for nearly 10 days before the incident at Sarai of Nanakmatta Sahib, which was a place under the supervision and overall control of petitioner and this could not be a mere coincidence. The Court noted that as per the Rules of Sarai, no person could stay for more than three days.
The Court opined that the law was well settled that until and unless a case was made out for quashing of FIR, no interim protection could be given. Apart from this, if such a protection was given during investigation, then to some extent it might interfere with the investigation and in such a situation, particularly when there was a serious crime committed by the two shooters, who came from outside the State, stayed in the premises of gurudwara for 10 days and successfully committed the crime, the Court should not interfere with the investigation. The Court opined that at this stage, no opinion should be given about petitioner’s involvement otherwise it would amount to interference with the investigation.
The Court also stated that FIR was not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported and mere information was sufficient for investigation. The Court stated that as far as the submission that petitioner was a senior bureaucrat (retired IAS) was concerned, these arguments were thoroughly misconceived and were not acceptable, particularly, when the investigation was at a pre-stage.
The Court was surprised to note that petitioner’s status and his antecedents were taken as a ground for quashing of FIR. The Court opined that merely by giving the status of petitioner that he was a senior bureaucrat, holding key posts in the States of UP and Uttarakhand had no relevance at all when the investigating agency was conducting the investigation which was their statutory power in respect of a crime which was very serious.
The Court noted that the investigation was still on going and for the investigation, the custodial interrogation was necessary, particularly when the incident was caused by the two shooters who came from the State of Punjab and stayed in Sarai for 10 days which was headed by petitioner, therefore, at this stage, the Court opined that any interference with investigation was unwarranted.
The Court thus dismissed the petition being devoid of any merit.
[Harbans Singh Chugh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Utt 1130, decided on 10-5-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Arvind Vashisth, Senior Counsel assisted by Vikas Kumar Guglani, Counsel
For the Respondents: Amit Bhatt, Government Advocate assisted by Saurabh Pandey, Brief Holder; S.K. Mandal, Lalit Sharma, Counsels
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
