REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.     963           OF 2009   (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 3555 of 2007)

Balbir Singh …Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab and Anr. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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 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 agency. The aforesaid FIR was  

registered  on  the  basis  of  statement  made by the  present  appellant.  The  

petitioner 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  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 removed to the hospital  

by Gurjit Singh and others and had reached in front of the hospital where  

2

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  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  

against  Gaganjit  Singh and Inderjit  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.,  the  investigation  of  the  said  cross-version  be  entrusted  to  an  

independent agency.  

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 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:

3

“Although,  the  police  was  not  required  to  register  separate FIR into the cross version set up by Gaganjit Singh but  the minimum it could do was to present the entire investigation  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 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 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 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  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 and not in  

respect of the controversy.   

4

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 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.

…………..……………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………..…………….J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)  

New Delhi, May 08, 2009  

5