In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to summon orders issued under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against implicated police officials facing corruption charges. This section empowers the court to take action against individuals who may appear guilty of an offense.
The apex court, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, upheld both the Trial Court’s decision and the challenged order from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, endorsing the summoning of the accused police officials.
The Division Bench found substantial prima facie evidence, deeming it a case worthy of trial against one of the accused police officials. The court, in its directive, stated, “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 case revolves around a complaint lodged against Devraj Miglani under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging the misappropriation of paddy. The investigation took a turn when the Vigilance Bureau, assigning the appellant to probe the matter, arrested the accused, Devraj.
The complainant, Devraj’s son, alleged that Head Constable Kikkar Singh demanded Rs.50,000 from Devraj’s niece at her workplace. Subsequently, the complainant filed a case against the police officials. Initially, the chargesheet was filed against Kikkar alone, but the trial Court, responding to an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., summoned four police officials, including the appellant. Discontent with this, the appellant contested the summoning order at the High Court, arguing that it did not align with the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh vs. the State of Punjab. The High Court dismissed this plea, leading the case to the Supreme Court.
Referring to the Hardeep Singh case, the Supreme Court noted that establishing a prima facie case requires stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity, falling short of the satisfaction that, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
Analyzing witness statements, the Court observed consistent details regarding threats, monetary demands, and torture of Devraj, despite the omission of certain events on the same day. The Court rejected arguments about pressuring the appellant due to his role as the Investigating Officer and clarified that such considerations can be addressed during the trial.
In conclusion, the Court refrained from commenting on the police report against Kikkar Singh and clarified that the order’s observations would not hinder the Trial Court’s proceedings.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
