1991 murder case: SC refuses to quash fresh FIR against ex-Punjab DGP Sumedh Saini
A bench of justices MM Sundresh and Pankaj Mithal said in view of chargesheet being filed in 1991 case of disappearance and murder of junior engineer Balwant Singh Multani, it would not like to interfere with the FIR.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with a fresh FIR against former Punjab DGP Sumedh Singh Saini in the 1991 disappearance and murder of junior engineer Balwant Singh Multani.
A bench of justices MM Sundresh and Pankaj Mithal said that in view of the subsequent development of a chargesheet being filed in the case, it would not like to interfere with the FIR.
The top court, however, said that observations and findings recorded in the Punjab and Haryana high court verdict of September 8, 2020, will not come in the way of proceedings before the trial court.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Saini, sought quashing of the FIR, saying it was lodged in 2020 after decades of the alleged incident due to political reasons. He said that the court had repeatedly granted relief to Saini, a decorated officer, and protected him from any coercive action in the case.
Justice Sundresh said that since the chargesheet has been filed in the case, it cannot go into quashing FIR at this stage.
The bench said Saini can face the proceedings before the trial court and can challenge them before an appropriate forum.
On January 5, 2021, the top court had asked the Punjab government to place on record the charge sheet filed in the fresh FIR lodged against Saini in the case.
Saini got anticipatory bail in 2020
The top court had already granted anticipatory bail to Saini in the fresh case lodged in the 1991 disappearance and murder of Multani.
On December 3, 2020, the top court had granted anticipatory bail to Saini in a fresh case lodged in the 1991 incident.
It had set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana high court declining him the pre-arrest bail in the 33-year-old case.
The top court had said that long delay in lodging of the FIR as in the present case can certainly be a valid consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.
It had noted that the impugned FIR (dated May 6, 2020) has been lodged by Palwinder Singh Multani, brother of the deceased, after 29 years from the date of incident.
It had said that even in the fresh FIR, there were only allegations of offences, such as abduction, causing disappearance of evidence, wrongful confinement, voluntarily causing hurt and criminal conspiracy under IPC for which there was an order of anticipatory bail in favour of Saini.
Saini was booked in May 2020 in connection with the disappearance of Multani when he was working as a junior engineer with the Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Corporation (Citco).
On September 8, 2020, the high court dismissed Saini’s two pleas for anticipatory bail in the case and quashed the fresh FIR.
Saini approached the high court after a Mohali court dismissed his bail plea in this case on September 1, 2020.
The Punjab Police on September 3, 2020, had claimed that Saini had “absconded” while denying his wife’s claims of withdrawal of his security cover.
A Mohali court had on August 21, 2020, allowed the Punjab Police to add a murder charge against him in this case.
Two cops turn approver in case
This came after two former Chandigarh Police personnel, UT police inspector Jagir Singh and ASI Kuldeep Singh, who are also co-accused, turned approver in the case.
The top court had earlier quashed the FIR related to the case when Saini was inspector general of police.
Multani, who was a resident of Mohali, was picked up by police after a terrorist attack on Saini, who was then the senior superintendent of police in Chandigarh, in 1991.
However, the police later claimed that Multani had escaped from police custody of Qadian police in Gurdaspur.
Saini and six others were booked on the complaint of Multani’s brother, Palwinder, a resident of Jalandhar.
The case was registered against them under Sections 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence), 344 (wrongful confinement), 330 (voluntarily causes hurt) and 120 (B) (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code at Mataur police station in Mohali.