The Supreme Court has issued notice on a special leavepetition filed by the Punjab government challenging certain findings andobservations in the April 9 order, passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Courtin the Kotkapura violence cases in connection with incidents of sacrilege ofthe Guru Granth Sahib.
A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and J. K. Maheshwari,in an order passed on Monday, said: "Issue notice. M/s. Karanjawala &Co., Advocate-on-Record accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent No 1. Noticebe issued to the other respondents, returnable in four weeks."
The high court had quashed the charge sheets and directedthat investigation into the alleged violence be conducted afresh by anewly-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Punjab Police.
Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, appeared for the Punjabgovernment. Gurdeep Singh, the then SHO of Kotkapura who has been arrayed asrespondent no 1 in the petition, was represented by senior advocates RanjitKumar and R.S. Cheema, and a team from Karanjawala & Co led by Nandini Goreand Sandeep Kapur, senior partners.
According to a counsel in the matter, the top courtobserved that the present matter is a serious issue and that the same isrequired to be examined in greater detail. The top court also observed that itwas only issuing notice in the matter at the moment and was not interferingwith the investigation being conducted by the newly-appointed SIT.
The matter pertains to the alleged violence in Kotkapura,Punjab on October 14, 2015 in response to the incidents of sacrilege of theGuru Granth Sahib between June, 2015 to October, 2015.
The high court had quashed the charge sheets filed in FIRno 129 on August 7, 2018 (which was filed after a lapse of almost 3 years), atKotkapura by the SIT, and FIR no 192 of October 14, 2015, pertaining to policefiring on protestors who had gathered to protest against sacrilege incidents.
It had issued certain directions to constitute a SITconsisting of three senior IPS officers from Punjab to investigate into theFIRs and issued directions on the functioning of such SIT. The state governmentdid not challenge the directions but moved the top court against certainfindings and observations. It included observations on the findings of the SITqua the role of the persons mentioned in the charge sheet, who were not partiesbefore the high court.
Ranjit Kumar, at the outset, submitted that the Punjabgovernment had not challenged the basis on which the high court quashed thereports which were presented under Section 173 of the CrPC in FIR No 129 datedAugust 7, 2018 and FIR No 192 dated October 14, 2015. He further submitted thatthe high court had afforded a well-reasoned order outlining the apparent biasand malicious manner in which the SIT, tasked with the investigation,investigated the matter.
He submitted that his client was the SHO of the concernedpolice station in the jurisdiction of which the violence occurred and that hewas being punished at the behest of Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh, an IPS officer(respondent no 3). He submitted that the record would reflect that his clientexecuted his duties with utmost responsibility and followed the directions ofthe SDM, who was the concerned duty magistrate in the town.