Holding

The petition is not infructuous; the Court may order an independent CBI investigation and may direct compensation to the victims' next of kin.

Summary

The petitioner, Inder Singh, filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the release of seven of his relatives who were allegedly abducted by a senior police officer, Baldev Singh, D.S.P., and six other policemen in October 1991. The victims remain untraced; a FIR was lodged only in March 1994 and a chargesheet filed thereafter, with the accused in judicial custody. The State of Punjab contended that the petition had become infructuous because criminal proceedings were underway. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the writ remains viable and the Court may still issue directions, including ordering an independent investigation and possible compensation to the victims' next of kin. Consequently, the Court directed the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a high‑level inquiry within four weeks and to report back, while also reserving the power to order compensation.

Issues considered

Whether a habeas corpus petition becomes infructuous after the filing of a chargesheet and pending criminal trial.
Whether the Supreme Court can order an independent investigation and compensation despite ongoing criminal proceedings.
Whether the investigation by the Punjab Police is adequate in a case involving alleged police abduction of citizens.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 32
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 143, s. 147, s. 149, s. 364, s. 365, s. 452

Subjects

habeas corpusabductionpolice misconductCBI investigationcompensationArticle 32missing personspolice accountability

Judgment

INDER SINGH A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

- SEPTEMBER 15, 1994

[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH CJ, DR. AS. ANAND B
AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.)

Constitution of India, Articles 21and3~abeas Corpus-Senior Pun-
jab Police Officer abducting seven persons-Case against officer registered
after long lapse of time-Abducted persons remaining untraced--lnvestigation C
by Central Bureau of Investigation into abduction order.

Constitution of India, Article 3~abeas Corpus Petition-Abduction
of seven persons by senior police officer-Persons remaining untraced--Char-
gesheet against officer filed-Whether petition became infructuous--Held, no; D
on receipt of report court can also order compensation to next of kin of
abducted persons.

In reply to a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the petitioner in July,
1994 the State of Punjab admitted that the third· respondent, a senior
officer of the Punjab Poli~ and six other policemen had abducted the · E
father, brother, son and four nephews of the petitioner in October, 1991
using offical machinery.

In a separate affidavit the Director General of Police, Punjab stated
that despite best efforts the seven persons could not yet be located. He
admitted that although the petitioner's complaint had been received in F
January, 1992, a FIR had been lodged only in March, 1994 and thereafter
chargesheet was filed to prosecute the third respondent and other
policemen who were in judicial custody. It was asserted that trial would
commence soon and the guilty punished, and that the writ petition had
accordingly become infructuous. G

Negativing the contention, this Court

HELD : 1.1. An independent investigation at a very high level is
called for. The inquiry shall be conducted personally by the Director of the
Central Bureau of Investigation and he shall make a report to the Court H·
573
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A within four weeks. Considering the leisurely manner in which the Punjab
Police has acted upon the complaint, it is not unreasonable to conclude
that the investigations by the Punjab Police will lead nowhere.

B
[581-C, 581-F, 580-C]
1.2. The investigation shall cover the cir~umstances of the abduction,
the present whereabouts and whether there has been an attempt to cover·
...
up the misdoings of police officers. [581-C, E]

1.3. The safety of the citizenry at the hands of such an errant, high-
handed and unchecked police force is a cause for deep concern. [580-D] .

C 2. The contention that the Writ Petition had become infructuous is
outrageous. The Court will be free to make such orders after the receipt
of the CBI report including orders for payment of compensation to the
next of the kin of the seven persons. [580-F, 582-A, B]

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
D 221 of 1994.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of In~a.)

K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General and R.S. Suri for the
Petitioner.
E
R.S. Sodhi and Mukul Mudgal for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This is a very disturbing matter. It is an habeas corbus petition to
F secure the release of Sadhu Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Amanjit Singh, Haraev
Singh, Davinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Sharanjit Singh. It is filed by
Inder Singh, who is the son of Sadhu Singh, the brother of Gurdeep Singh,
the father of Hardev Singh and the uncle of Amanjit Singh, Davinder Singh,
Sukhdev Singh and Sharanjit Singh, Sadhu Singh is said to about 85 years
G old and Sukhdev Singh and Sharanjit Singh to be about 17 and 14 years
old respectively.

It is the case of the petitioner that at or about 5.00 a.m. on 29th
October, 1991, a police party under the command of Baldev Singh, D.S.P.,
who is the thii:d respondent to the petition, came to his residence and
H . directed that all those present be lined up in its courtyard. The third
INDER SINGH v.. STAIB 575

respondent then ordered that the 7 persons in respect of whom the petition A
is filed be taken into custody. The police party accompanying the third
respondent, accordingly, took the said 7 persons into custody and placed
them in a police van (No. PB-06-3100). The petitioner and his family were
told that they would be given the dead bodies of the said 7 persons if the
third respondent's brother was not produced. The petition sets out the B
various police stations in which the said 7 persons were from time to time
lodged until 28th December, 1991. The petition states that efforts to obtain
the release of the said 7 persons having failed, the habeas corpus petition
had been filed on 27th July, 1994.

The third respondent, who appeared before us through counsel on C
30th August 1994 and today, has filed an affidavit in reply to the petition
on 23rd August, 1994. Therein he denies the allegations made against him
in the petition. He states therein that an FIR has been lodged in regard to
the abduction of the said 7 persons on 23rd March, 1994, in P.S. Kathunan-
gal, District Majitha, which is under investigation by Gurcharan Singh,, D
Superintendent of Police In Charge, Crime Investigation Cell, Punjab. He
states that on 21st October 1991 he was posted as D.S.P., Dera Baba Nanak
Sub-Division in District Batala, and the residence of the petitioner fell
outside his jurisdiction. He also states that he is cooperating in the inves-
tigation of the said FIR.
E
The FIR is annexed to the affidavit of the third respondent and it
says that the fourth respondent, who is alleged to have been part of the
police party, is the ~orther of the third respondent.

Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on
behalf of the State of Punjab and K.P.S. Gill, Director General of Police, F
Pubjab, the first and second respondents to the petition, made a submission
before us on 30th August 1994, which is recorded thus : .

"We record the statement of Sri K.T.S. Tulsi, Addl. Solicitor
General appearing for Res11ondent Nos. 1 & 2, that the investiga- G
tions have revealed that Respondent No. 3, the Deputy Superin-
tendent of Police, was guilty of causing the abduction of the seven
persons in 1991 in complicity with other policemen and that the
investigations have not yet revealed whether the abducted persons
are alive or have been killed by Respondent No. 3 and his police
accomplices. It is also submitted that the Police are placing a H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A charge-sheet against the third respondent and other police officers
concerned. It is also stated that the third respondent is abscond-
ing."

Mr. Tulsi then submitted that·this was a rare case in which the Punjab
Police admitted that one of its officers had been guilty of abducting citizens
B ·and that the Punjab Police should, therefore, be trusted to carry out the
investigations into the matter thoroughly. He sought to file an affidavit in
this behalf.
........

It is amply clear from the submissions of Mr. Tulsi referred to above
C and the affidavits to which we shall now advert that the siad 7 persons were
not wanted by the Punjab Police in connection with any criminal offence
or inquiry.

An affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the State of Punjab, the
D first respondent to the petition. It states that the statement of the petitioner
was recorded on 22nd May, 1994. The said FIR had been registered and
that, during investigations, offences under sections 143, 147, 149, 365 and
452 of the Indian Penal Code had been added. Eye witnesses had named,
apart from Baldev Singh, the third respondent, the following persons :
Balwinder Singh, Head-constable, the 4th respondent, Sukhwinder Singh,
E Head-constable, Nirmal Singh, Constable, Amrik Singh, Constable, Gur-
mukh Singh, Constable and Radhir Singh as Driver. The third respondent
had been arrested on 2nd September, 1994 and the other accused between
27th August 1994 and 4th September 1994. Sufficient evidence had been
collected against the accused. All the accused were in judicial custody. The
F specific allegations in the petition that the said 7 persons had been lodged
in the various police stations mentioned until 28th December, 1991, is not
denied. ·

The affidavit of K.P.S. Gill, Director General of Police, Punjab, the
2nd respondent to the petition, needs to be set out in some detail. He states
G that he was not the Director General of Police, Punjab, on 29th October
1991, when the incident of abduction of the said 7 persons took place.
Upon enquiry, Mr. Tulsi stated that the 2nd respondent had taken charge
as Director General of Police, Punjab, in November 1991. The 2nd respon-
dent was, therefore, the Director General of Police, Punjab, on 25th
H January, 1992, when, according to his own affidavit, the complaint in regard
INDER SINGH v. STATE sn
to the abduction of the said 7 persons, which was addressed. to him, was A
received in his office on 25th January 1992.

On the same day, according to the 2n.d respondent's affidavit, the
complaint was marked by his P.A. to the Inspector General (Crime). Since
the LG. (Crime) was on leave, a report ~as called for by the D.l.G. (Crime) B
from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Majitha. The S.S.P., Majitha,
sent the Feport on 23rd April, 1992, according to which the allegations in
the complaint were found to be false. The report of the S.S.P., Majitha,
.~ was not found to be satisfactory by the D.LG. (~rime and an indevendent
inquiry was ordered through the Superintendent of P9lice, Special Staff,
attached to the office of LG. (Crime). The report of the Superintendent of C
Police, Special Staff, made consequent updn the inquiry, showed that the
third respondent was responsible for the abduction of said 7 persons. The
Special Branch, accordingly, recommended registration of a case against
the 3rd respondent under section 364, Indian Pe.nal. Code. The D.I.G.
(Crime) then suggested that the facts of the case may be got verified D
through a senior officer, upon which the Additional Director General of
Police (Intelligence) directed the D.I.G., Jallandhar Range, to inquire into
the matter and send .his report. This direction was ~ven on 27th August,
1992. "Eventually", quoting the 2nd respondent's affidavit, "the report was
received form the S.S.P. Majitha stating that the allegations against repon-
dent no. 3 were not proved". We asked Mr. Tulsi what was the date upon E
which the report had "eventually'' been received from the S.S.P., Majitha;
we were told that it was received on 17th February, 1994. The 2nd
respondent's affidavit states that, notwithstanding the difference of opinio_n
between the Special Branch and the Crime Branch,· the proposal of the
I.G. (Crime) for registration of the case was approved by the Director F
General of Police (Intelligence) an 11th March, 1994 and the case was
registered on 23rd March, 1994. The affidavit of the 2nd respondent states,
"I further state ·that the aforesaid file was not put up to me at any stage
and the matter was dealt with at· the level ~f Director General of Police
(Intelligence) and the I.G~ (Crime). It is further submitted that the case
came to my notice o~ the filing of the present writ petition....... ". The result G
of the investigation showed that the 3rd respondent had abducted the said
7 persons on the suspicion that they had got his broth~r abducted through
. terrorists and it was "highly regrettable that a member of the police force
should hav~ resorted to retaliatory action and taken the law in his own
hands". Paragraphs 7, 8 and _9 of the 2nd respondent's affidavit read thus: H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 7. That the police has made all possible inquiries about the
whereabouts of the abducted persons. All possible clues with
regard to whereabouts have been scrutinized by the Investigating
Officer under the guidance of senior officer supervising the inves-
tigation inspite of the best efforts made to trace their whereabouts,
the police has not been able to locate them out and there is no
B definite clue as to whether they are alive or not. Efforts to trace
them will continue to be made and result of further investigation
will be placed before the Court.

8. That the Punjab Police is proud of the dedication, courage and
·c sense of sacrifice of its· officers and men and incidents of the kind
mentioned in the petition are deviant behaviour and an aberration
on the part of individual member of the force. It is, thus, being ·
dealt with severely and the Majesty of Law will prevail eventually
by bringing the guilty to the court of law for receiving suitable
punishment.
D
9. In view of the fact that the chargesheet has already been filed
in the court of competent jurisdiction, this writ petition has become
infructuous and Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to
dispose of the same in view of the fact that the trial into the incident
E is likely to commence soon in the criminal court.

Seven persons ranging in age from 85 to 14 are alleged to have been
abducted by a senior police officer and sundry policemen using official
machinery for the purpose. The first complaint in this behalf was made to
p the 2nd respondent and received in his office as far back as 25th January,
1992. The 2nd respondent says in his affidavit that he knew nothing about
the matter until the writ petition was filed in July 1994. In January, 1992,
the complaint had been marked by his P.A. to the I.G. (Crime). If so, the
complaint was not deemed to be of such importance that it merited the
attention of the officer in over-all command of the Punjab Police and to
G whom it was expressly addressed. We find this surprising.

The I.G. (Crime) being on leave, a report was called for by the DIG
(Crime) from the S.S.P~ Majitha. The S.S.P. Majitha reported on 23rd
April, 1992, that the allegations were false. However, the D.I.G. (Crime)
H found the report of the S.S.R., Majitha, ~satisfactory and ordered an
INDER SINGH v. STATE 579

"independenf mquiry" through the Superintendent of Police, Special Staff, A
attached to the office of I.G. (Crime). The report of the S.P., Special Staff,
showed the 3rd respondent to be responsible for the abduction of said 7

- persons and, accordingly it rec::unmended the registration of a case against
him under section 364, Indian Penal Code. No case was registerd. No
disciplinary action was taken against the 3rd respondent. He was not
suspended. Even at this stage the case was not brought to the notice of the
B

2nd respondent. We asked Mr. Tulsi whether reports as serious as that of
the·S.P., Special Staff, against so senior an officer of the Punjab Police as
a D.S.P., were not, under the dispensation of the 2nd respondent, con-
sidered unusual enough to merit his notice. Mr. Tulsi replied that those C
were dire times in the State of Punjab and many such accusations were
made. No comment appears necessary.

The D.I.G. (Crime) instead of registering a case against the 2nd
respondent, upon receipt of the report of the S.P ., Special Staff, suggested
that the case may be verified by a senior officer and, upon that, the D
Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) directed the D.I.G.,
Jallandhar, to inquire and send his report. The direction was given on 27th
August, 1992. No report was forthcoming till 17th February, 1994, i.e., for
about 18 months, and when the report was received it was not from a
"senior officer", the D.I.G., Jallandhar Range, who had been directed to E
inquire into the matter, but from the S.S.P. Majitha. No explanation
whatever is given as to why the report took 18 months and why, when it
came, it was made by the S.S.P., Majitha, and not the D.I.G. Jallandhar
Range. It will be remembered that the S.S.P., Majitha, had on 23rd April,
1992, already come to the conclusion that the complaint against the 3rd
F
respondent was not true. We asked Mr. Tulsi whether the person occupy-
ing the position of S.S.P., Majitha, on 17th February, 1994, was the same
person who had occupied the position on 23rd April 1992; he was unable
to tell us.

Even after the cases was registered against the 3rd respondent on G
23rd March, 1994, the 2nd respondent's affidavit states, the 2nd respondent
was not informed. The "file was not put up to him at any stage and the
.matter was dealt with at the level of Director General of Police (Intel-
ligence) and the I.G. (Crime)." Mr. Tulsi submitted that the D.G. (Intel-
ligence) occupied a position equal to that of the 2nd respondent, but he H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A then admitted that it was the 2nd respondent who occupied the highest
chair in the Punjab Police. This is also clear from the 2nd respondent's
affidavit where he states that the matter was dealt with "at the leval of' the
D.G. (Intalligence).

B
The 2nd respondent's affidavit states that all possible inquiries had
been made and clues scrutinised but the police had been unable to locate
...
the 7 abducted persons - admittedly abducted by the police - and "there is
no definite clue as to whether they are alive or not". We are not surprised.
Considering the leisurely manner in which the Punjab Police has acted
upon the complaint received so far back as January 1992, and that despite
c an affirmative report on "independent induiry", it is not unreasonable to
conclude that the investigations of the Punjab Police will lead nowhere. We
are deeply concerned about the safety of the citizenry at the hands of such
an errant, high-handed and un<;hecked police force.

D Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the 2nd respondent's affidavit have been
quoted above. We do not, for the reasons aforestated, subscribe to the 2nd
respondent's bland assertion that the "Majesty of Law will prevail eventual-
ly by bringing the guilty to the court of law for receiving suitable punish-
ment", not if things are left to the Punjab Police. Apart from which, in our
E view, the majesty of the law will prevail - and this aspect the 2nd respon-
dent does not appear to have considered - if the 7 abducted persons are
found alive or - which is more likely - dead, We, therefore, find the
submission in the 2nd respondents "affidavit that, in view of the fact that
the charge-sheet had already been filed, "this writ petition l:as become
infructuous and Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to dispose of
F the same" outrageous.

It will be remembered that the petition set out the various police
stations in which the said 7 persons were from time to time lodged until
28th December, 1991, and that there is no denial thereto. We cannot but
G wonder whether Station House Officers of police stations in Punjab are not
alert to the fact that there are strangers in their lock-ups and do not feel
it necessary to find out how these strangers come to be there. There is not
a word in the affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Punjab and by the
2nd respondent which states that any investigation has been made into the
H conduct of those in-charge of these named police stations and other police
,f
INDER SINGH v. STAIB 581
officers and policemen therein. They were obviously also involved in illegal- A
ly detaining the said 7 persons within the precincts of the police stations.
We arc, ther~fore, unimpressed by the assertion of the 2nd respondent in
his affidavit that 'incidents of the kind mentioned in the petition arc deviant
. behaviour and an aberration on the part of individual member of the force'.
B
For the reasons that we have already set out. We are unwilling to
• entrust the investigation of the abduction and presumable liquidation of
the said 7 persons to the Punjab Police. We are satisfied that an inde-
pendent investigation at a very high level is called for. The investigation
shall cover: (a) the circumstances of the abduction of said 7 persons; (b) C
their present whereabouts or the date and circumstances of their liquida-
tion; (c) how it was that the inquiry into the complaint was delayed from
25th January, 1992, when it was received by the office of the 2nd respon-
dent, till 23rd March, 1994, when fhe case was registered; (d) whether it is
in conformity with good police a<lmicistration that a complaint of abduc-
tion of 7 citizens by a high ranklng police officer should not be required D
to be brought to the attention of the officer in command of the police force
even after the allegations made in the complaint had been found to be
correct on inquiry by a specially designated officer; (e) whether there has
been an attempt to cover-up the misdoings of police officers and policemen
involved in the abduction of the said 7 persons and their subsequent E
incarceration or liquidation; and (I) if so, who was involved therein.

The inquiry shall be conducted personally by the Director of the
Central Bureau of Investigation and he shall made a report to u5 within 4
weeks from today. For the purposes of recording statements and such other F
purposes, the .Director shall be free to utilise the servic;es of.officers of the
rank of Deputy Director, CBI, and above. The report shall be submitted
in a sealed envelope to the Registrar-General of the Supreme Court and
it shall be opened by us.

We direct the State of Punjab to ensure all assistance to the CBI for G
the purposes of the inquiry ordered as aforesaid in view of the observations
made.by us.

We appreciate that we are castiog a conSiderable burden upon an
officer who must, no doubt, be already heavily burdened b11t we think it H •
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A imperative in the public interest to do so.

We make it clear that we shall be free to make such orders as are
deemed necessary when we receive the report of the Director, CBI,
including orders for payment of compensation by the respondents to the
next of kin of the saiq 7 persons.
B
The Registry shall send copies of this order forthwith to the Director,
- C.B.I., the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affiars,, Government cif India, and
the Secretary, Home Ministry, State of Punjab.

To be placed on Board after 4 weeks from today.

S.M. Disposed of.