S.319 CrPC | Supreme Court Affirms Summon Orders Against Police Officials Accused Of Corruption; Finds Prima Facie Case

While doing so, the Top Court affirmed the Trial Court as well as the impugned order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, summoning the police officials.

The Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal found prima facie evidence to make it a triable case as against the appellant (one of the accused police officials).

“In view of the discussion made above, there appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case as against the appellant. We, accordingly, are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.,” the Court ordered.

The instant case revolves around a complaint filed against one Devraj Miglani under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation was about the misappropriation of paddy. The case took a turn when the investigation of the said FIR was transferred to the Vigilance Bureau, where the appellant was tasked with investigating the crime. Consequently, the accused, Devraj, was arrested.

As per the complainant's case, Head Constable Kikkar Singh approached Devraj's niece at her workplace, demanding a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Based on this, the complainant (Devraj's son) filed a complaint against the police officials. While the chargesheet was filed only against Kikkar, the trial Court subsequently allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the four police officials, including the appellant. Aggrieved by this, the appellant challenged the summoning order before the High Court. Therein, inter-alia, the appellant pleaded that the summoning order was not in accordance with the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. the State of Punjab. However, his plea was dismissed by the High Court. Thus, the matter traveled to the Supreme Court.

For reference, in Hardeep Singh, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had held that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than the mere probability of his complicity. "The test that has to be applied is one which is more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if it goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction." the Court elaborated. 

Supreme Court's Observations and Findings 

At the outset, the Court examined the witness' statements. The Court noted that these statements have equivocally narrated the incidents regarding threats, demand for huge sums of money, and torture of Devraj.

“Since everything happened on the same day it is quite possible that the entire story from the time of surrender of Devraj could not have been mentioned but soon after that at the first instance the conduct of the appellant and the other police officials trying to extract money from Devraj and his family members was mentioned in detail by all the witnesses.”

According to the witnesses, the amount was being demanded for several reasons. This included preventing Devraj from being physically tortured and helping him get bail. Further, the Court did not accept the argument about brow-beating the appellant as he was the Investigating Officer against Devraj. However, the Court stated that the same can be taken as a defence in the trial.

In view of this above projection, the Court noted that the parameters laid down in Hardeep Singh stand satisfied. In the end, the Court made some pertinent clarifications. Firstly, the Court said it is refraining from commenting on the police report submitted only against Kikkar Singh. Secondly, it clarified that the Court is not discussing the witness's testimony, and the observations made in the instant order will not come in the way of the Trial Court.

Case Title: GURDEV SINGH BHALLA v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.,

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 28

Clickhere to download/ read the judgment