High Court upholds CBI action in Chandigarh cops’ case, terms pleas ‘vexatious’

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed with Rs 50,000 costs two petitions filed against the CBI by two UT cops and another person.

“Both these petitions are frivolous to the extent of being vexatious which have not only consumed, rather, wasted the precious time of this court, which could have been utilised in hearing and deciding more pressing matters. Consequently, this court dismisses both these petitions with cost of Rs. 25,000 against in each petition,” Chief Justice Sheel Nagu asserted.

The Bench asserted that an FIR was registered on April 4, 2022, alleging outraging of modesty and other offences. The accused was arrested the same day and a mobile phone along with SIM was seized. The investigation was handed over to Sub Inspector Satyawan on oral directions of SHO Ram Rattan. The police later prepared the cancellation report which was accepted by UT CJM.

In December 2022, the DGP allegedly found illegal and corrupt activities on the part of UT police personnel and requested the CBI to conduct an inquiry. A preliminary inquiry was registered at CBI against Kuldeep Chahal - the then SSP Chandigarh – but not against Satyawan or Ram Rattan.

During the inquiry, the CBI allegedly found involvement of petitioners Satyawan and Ram Rattan. and sought approval for conducting enquiry or investigation and a case was later registered.

The enquiry revealed that the two in conspiracy with others destroyed crucial evidence. The CBI was represented by Special Public Prosecutors Gagandeep Singh Wasu and Ravi Kamal Gupta.

Chief Justice Nagu asserted the initial FIR died its own death with the acceptance of cancellation report. Therefore, the challenge in one of the petitions to the FIR was rendered infructuous. Any further inquiry by the CBI was challenged by another petition, primarily based on the ground that inquiry could not proceed in the absence of approval.

The CBI’s stand was it sought approval from the competent authority, which was granted under section 17A on April 11, 2024.

“The act of the CBI in no manner was unlawful or against any provision of law…. In actuality the FIR No.62 dated April 4, 2022, is founded upon allegation made by lady complainant against petitioner in one of the petitions, whereas the allegations against petitioners in the other arose out of cognizable offences committed by police personnel while conducting the investigation in FIR dated April 4, 2022,” the Bench concluded.