- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Former DGP Sumedh Singh Saini's...
Former DGP Sumedh Singh Saini's Plea For Quashing FIR In Multani Murder Case: Supreme Court Directs To Defer Hearing Before Magistrate
Mehal Jain
5 Jan 2021 7:45 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Tuesday required the hearing on January 22 before the jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the May, 2020 FIR against former Punjab DGP Sumedh Singh Saini over a 1991 custodial death case to be postponed till the end of February.The bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan was hearing Saini's SLP against the September 8, 2020 decision of the Punjab and Haryana High...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday required the hearing on January 22 before the jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the May, 2020 FIR against former Punjab DGP Sumedh Singh Saini over a 1991 custodial death case to be postponed till the end of February.
The bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan was hearing Saini's SLP against the September 8, 2020 decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing his plea against the registration of the criminal case against him in Mohali regarding the disappearance of Balwant Singh Multani. Notably, the petitioner had sought directions to quash the FIR registered against him or refer the matter to CBI for the probe in the matter.
"Since we are seized of the matter, it will be appropriate for the Magistrate to postpone the case to the end of February", observed the bench on Tuesday.
The bench then proceeded to direct the state of Punjab to bring on record the chargesheet in two weeks, listing the matter for hearing in the second week of February.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the petitioner, advanced, "This is the other case of the DGP. Your Lordships had allowed anticipatory bail earlier. This is for the quashing of the FIR which has been dismissed by the High Court. This FIR is the fifth attempt in the last 30 years to rope this man in. The attitude of the state is eloquently vindictive"
Senior Counsel Gopal Subramaniam, for the state, informed the bench that the chargesheet has been filed and the summons have been issued for January 22. "If the petitioner appears before the magistrate, he can be enlarged on bail. To be fair to the petitioner, the matter merits examination. No copy of the chargesheet has been shared so far as he is yet to appear before the court. But we will give the chargesheet", he assured.
"Your Lordships had noted in the anticipatory bail order whether there can be a third or fourth or fifth FIR? In this FIR, after 30 years, I am the only accused.There are posters all around Punjab that Sumedh Singh Saini is wanted dead or alive. My Z+ security has also been taken away by the state. This is a state overreach of the court, where in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the evidence is being examined by Your Lordships. Please stay the proceedings in the chargesheet. Your Lordships may examine the matter today or tomorrow, but I can't be asked to appear on the 22nd. If the FIR is bad, how can the chargesheet proceed? It is also illegal!", pressed Mr. Rohatgi.
"You can apply for exemption. The Supreme Court is seized of this matter. Mr. Subramanian will place the chargesheet on record and then we will hear", suggested Justice Bhushan.
"There is a security threat to me. Please let me appear through a lawyer. If appearance is required even though the Supreme Court is seized of this matter, let my appearance there also be through a lawyer! This case is completely vindictive", pressed Mr. Rohatgi.
"No, no, this is a very serious case. Your Lordships may not pass that kind of an order", interjected senior advocate Vikas Singh
"We will not do anything to prejudice the proceedings of this court. Anything that transpires before the Magistrate will be subject to Your Lordships' orders. Just because there is a chargesheet, we don't have the hold. The matter is still within the seisin of this court. We will place the chargesheet on record and assist you to come to a conclusion. But because it is an offence of this kind, the petitioner would appear before the Magistrate and then he may be admitted to bail", assured Mr. Subramaniam.
Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the original complainant, advanced that Mr. Rohatgi is "absolutely wrong"- "No permission of Your Lordships' was needed to register the FIR. The first FIR had been quashed on purely technical grounds. Your Lordships have since 1953 repeatedly said that if a FIR is null and void, a second FIR can be maintained. This is a serious case of kidnapping, torture and murder!"
"The FIR is between me and the state! The informant is nobody!", argued Mr. Rohatgi.
"Why can you not adjourn the matter?", Justice Bhushan asked of Mr Subramaniam.
"Some documents have to be given. It is a voluminous chargesheet of 500 pages, containing statements of several witnesses. By the time Your Lordships take up the matter in February, the petitioner will have appeared and we will make sure the petitioner has the documents. Your Lordships will have proper assistance from us...we will do nothing to prejudice the examination by Your Lordships", replied Mr. Subramaniam.
Ultimately, the bench granted 2 weeks' time to the state to bring on record the charge-sheet, listing the SLP for the second week of February. Noting that the matter before the concerned Magistrate comes up on January 22, the bench noted that since the Supreme Court is seized of the matter, "it shall be appropriate" for the Magistrate to postpone the same to the end of February.
The case had been registered against Saini under sections 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 201 (causing the disappearance of evidence of offence), 344 (wrongful confinement), 330 (voluntarily causes hurt), 219 and 120 (B) (criminal conspiracy) [Section 302 IPC added subsequently] of the Indian Penal Code at Mataur police station in Mohali.
The Supreme Court had in December last year allowed Saini's anticipatory bail plea in connection with the same.
[Read Order]
Next Story
