HC seeks report on forwarding of case to Lok Adalat

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 6

Less than a month after a city resident with pellets still embedded in the body after bullet injury moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging repeated attempts by the Chandigarh Police to file untraced report in his case, Justice Rajan Gupta has sought report from the UT District and Sessions Judge.

The Judge has been asked to report on the circumstances in which a case of attempt to murder and common intention under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC, besides provisions of the Arms Act, was forwarded to the Lok Adalat.

The petitioner, Darshan Singh Kler, also alleged that the presiding officer of the UT Lok Adalat accepted untraced report after recording that his counsel had no objection to its acceptance, even though time was sought from the court to file a protest petition.

In the petition, Kler’s counsel Saurabh Arora added that the impugned order dated December 12, 2015, came to be passed on an absolutely wrong premise that the petitioner’s counsel gave his consent to the alleged untraced report.

Going into the background of the matter, Arora asserted that the petitioner suffered firearm injuries on the left side of his chest and left arm, following a case of attempt to murder and other offences under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Arms Act, was registered against the respondent at the Sector 34 police station on November 2, 2011.

Acting under the influence of the Davinder Singh Sandhu and two other respondents, the investigating agency prepared cancellation report dated November 16, 2013, on the grounds that the incident, during the course of investigation, was found to have occurred in Nayagaon, for which a separate case stood registered at police station there.

The cancellation report was, however, ordered to be sent for further investigation. Thereafter once again, the investigating agency submitted re-cancellation report dated October 18, 2015, before the court of UT Judicial Magistrate First Class.

On December 12, 2015, his counsel sought time to file a protest petition but “surprisingly” the presiding officer, Lok Adalat, observed that the state counsel submitted that clue could not be found in the present case against the accused despite best efforts by the police and untraced report may be accepted. The officer accepted the report after recording that the counsel for the complainant had stated he had no objection if the untraced report was accepted.

A perusal of the order dated December 12, 2015, showed it was signed only by the presiding officer and not by other member of the Lok Adalat.