In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court quashed three FIRs filed against senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Gurjinder Pal Singh, citing procedural irregularities, lack of evidence, and a pattern of harassment driven by political motives. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, ruled in favor of Singh, stating that the cases against him were initiated with a malafide intent.
Background of the Case
Gurjinder Pal Singh, a 1994-batch IPS officer with an illustrious career, served in various capacities, including Inspector General of Naxal Operations. A recipient of the President’s Police Medal for Meritorious Service (2011) and the Police Medal for Gallantry (2007), Singh became embroiled in legal battles following a change in political leadership in Chhattisgarh in 2018.
The cases against Singh arose shortly after he allegedly refused to succumb to political pressures to implicate opposition leaders in sensitive investigations, including the infamous Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam. The FIRs were filed between June and July 2021:
1. FIR No. 22/2021: Alleging disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This followed raids at Singh’s residence and the controversial recovery of 2 kilograms of gold from a bank officer’s scooter, allegedly planted to implicate Singh.
2. FIR No. 134/2021: Filed under Sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting enmity) of the Indian Penal Code, based on purported recovery of seditious documents from Singh’s premises.
3. FIR No. 590/2021: Registered under Sections 388, 384, and 506 of IPC, relating to alleged extortion and intimidation in 2015, with a six-year delay in filing the complaint.
These cases were accompanied by departmental proceedings, culminating in Singh’s compulsory retirement, which was subsequently overturned by the Central Administrative Tribunal and upheld by the Delhi High Court.
Legal Issues
The High Court scrutinized several key legal issues in the case:
1. Validity of FIRs and Procedural Lapses
– The court noted that the FIRs were filed without valid prosecution sanctions under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The state failed to comply with established procedures for sanctioning investigations against public servants.
– A significant delay of six years in filing FIR No. 590/2021 raised questions about its credibility, with the court emphasizing the lack of an explanation for the delay.
2. Evidence Tampering and Fabrication
– The court highlighted inconsistencies in the evidence. A key witness, SBI officer Mani Bhushan, testified that the gold bullion allegedly recovered from his scooter was planted, and CCTV footage capturing the incident was seized and tampered with by investigators.
– The purported recovery of seditious material was also questioned, with the court noting that the torn documents allegedly retrieved from a storm drain were unendorsed and never presented in court.
3. Malafide Intent
– The court observed that the FIRs appeared to be retaliatory, stemming from Singh’s refusal to toe the line of political pressures. It remarked, “The initiation of these FIRs appears to be an orchestrated attempt to target a senior officer for not yielding to political pressures.”
4. Flawed Departmental Proceedings
– Departmental inquiries initiated against Singh on identical grounds were found to be baseless, with no progress even after three years. The tribunal had earlier ruled that Singh’s compulsory retirement was punitive and intended to bypass due process.
Observations and Judgment
The court delivered a scathing critique of the state’s actions, noting a systemic failure to uphold the principles of justice. In its judgment, the bench stated:
“The procedural irregularities, lack of substantive evidence, and unexplained delays in filing these FIRs reveal a deliberate attempt to harass the petitioner. Such actions cannot stand the scrutiny of law.”
Key observations from the court include:
– The charges in FIR No. 22/2021 were based on fabricated evidence, including the gold bullion allegedly recovered from a bank officer’s scooter, which was planted to frame Singh.
– The sedition case (FIR No. 134/2021) lacked credible evidence, with key witnesses refuting the prosecution’s claims during cross-examination.
– FIR No. 590/2021, alleging extortion, suffered from an unexplained delay of six years, rendering it suspect.
The bench quashed all three FIRs and the associated proceedings, including the chargesheets and trial court orders.
The petitioner, Gurjinder Pal Singh, was represented by Senior Advocate Rajesh Garg and Advocate Himanshu Pandey, who argued that the cases were politically motivated and unsupported by evidence. The state was represented by Government Advocate Akhilesh Kumar, while counsel Sanjay Kumar Agrawal appeared for the complainant in FIR No. 590/2021.
