RC No. 23 (S) 2005 /SC.

1/CBI
04.12.2015
ORDER ON PROTEST PETITION FILED BY MS. LAKHVINDER KAUR
1.It was the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of this country, by
her two Sikh security guards, that led to violent attacks on innocent Sikhs and their
properties in various parts of the country including its capital. On 01.11.1984 an
incident of rioting took place near the area of Pul Bangash in which three persons
were burnt alive by the mob. The said incident is the subject matter of the present
case in which husband of victim Lakhwinder Kaur (hereinafter referred to as
complainant) was killed. Thirty one accused were charge-sheeted initially by the
police and were acquitted after the trial. Later on, however, on the
recommendation of Nanawati Commission, the Central Govt. directed the CBI to
investigate the case against Jagdish Titler and so the present case was registered
vide case RC No. 23 (S) 2005 /SC.1/CBI on 22.11.2005.
2.CBI conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against one person Suresh
Kumar @ Panewala and stated that no reliable evidence was available regarding
involvement of Sh. Jagdish Tytler.
3.CBI was directed to reinvestigate vide order dt. 18.12.07. After investigation
closure report qua Sh. Jagdish Titler was filed and the closure report was
accepted by the Ld ACMM vide its order dt. 27.04.10.
4.The complainant challenged this order by way of revision petition and Ld.
Session Court vide order dated 10.04.2013 set aside order dated 27 April 2010
passed by Ld. ACMM East and directed CBI to conduct further investigation. The
relevant portion of the order is as under:
CBI is directed to conduct further investigation in the light of aforesaid facts and
to record the statements of witnesses, who it had come to know during the
investigation itself, are claiming/shown/named to be the eye witnesses of the
incident.
Page No.1 of 7

5.In view of the said directions passed by the Ld Session Court, CBI conducted
further investigation and filed charge-sheet number 14 on 24 December 2014.
6.In the said charge sheet CBI submitted that no evidence emerged during
investigation for the prosecution of Jagdish Tytler, for the following reasons:
6.1.That witnesses Alam Singh, Chanchal Singh, Santokh Singh and Resham
Singh, whose names cropped up in the protest petition filed by complainant, were
not traceable.
6.2.That Lakhwinder Kaur/complainant is not an eye witness to the incident and
as such her testimony regarding what she was told about the incident by the eye
witnesses, is hearsay evidence and cannot be safely relied upon.
6.3.That Sh. Sudip Mazumdar, Journalist and Sh. S.C Tandon, Commissioner of
Police1, admitted that on 6 November 1984, while Sh. S.C Tandon was holding a
press conference, Jagdish Tytler suddenly entered the said conference and
disrupted it, but that by itself does not connect Jagdish Tytler with the incident.
6.4.That three witnesses namely Sh. Rajinder Kumar Dhawan, Sh. Gautam Kaul
and Sh. Amitabh Bachchan, who on the date of incident were present at Teen
Murti House, were examined but from their examination the exact time of the
presence or absence of Jagdish Tytler at Teen Murti house could not be
ascertained.
6.5.That Sh. Sattu Singh was also examined and as per his testimony, he was not
present at the spot when the incident took place, rather, it was his son Jasbir
Singh, who had seen anti Sikh riots and that he had asked his son to keep quiet in
view of the killing of his younger brother Sheetal Singh during riots.
6.6.That on the request of Abhishek Verma, he was examined and he stated that
sometime in the year 2004-05 Jagdish Tytler had requested him to send Narinder
Singh S/o Surinder Singh Granthi to Canada and that he arranged to send
Narinder Singh to Canada with the help of company namely Atlas Systems Ltd,
Montreal, Canada and that all the expenses for sending him were borne by
Jagdish Tytler. He also stated that Jagdish Tytler had struck a deal with Surinder
1

In 1984.

Page No.2 of 7

Singh, for changing his statement so that he could get a clean chit in this case,
worth rupees one crore besides paying $ 50,000 to his son Narinder Singh and
that he had also helped Jagdish Tytler in defreezing an amount of rupees five
crores at Canada through his friend Late Deepak Rampal of Dubai and that a part
of this money was to be paid to Narinder Singh as per the agreement. The
statement of this witness was discarded on the ground that the facts narrated by
the witness could not be verified because Surinder Singh had expired and
Narinder Singh was not traceable.
7.Protest petition was filed on behalf of complainant Lakhwinder Kaur, along with
which phone number of Narinder Singh was filed in sealed cover.
8.In the protest petition it is submitted that sufficient efforts were not made by CBI
to trace and examine the witnesses to the incident and that CBI without verifying
the facts disclosed by witness Abhishek Verma, discarded his statement.
9.Reply to the protest petition was filed by CBI, in which CBI submitted that there
were no grounds for further investigation.
10.Arguments were heard on the protest petition and it was listed for orders on 17
November 2015. However, on 10 November 2015 an application was filed by
complainant Lakhvinder Kaur for deferring the matter for enabling the complainant
to furnish reliable and additional information as regards the witnesses mentioned
in closure report filed on 24 December 2014.
11.Reply to the said application was filed by CBI on 16 November 2015, in which
CBI submitted that it has no objection if time is granted to the complainant to
obtain information regarding the whereabouts of the material witnesses and that
CBI is also willing to examine the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet filed
on 24 December 2014.
12.Today complainant filed the name and address of two new witnesses, who as
per the complainant wintessed the incident under investigation. In order dated
10.04.2013, Ld. Session Court directed CBI to examine witnesses claiming /
shown / named to be the eye witnesses of the incident.

As such the two

witnesses named today fall in the first category i.e. witnesses who claim to be the
Page No.3 of 7

eye witnesses. It whould be only after their examination that CBI would be able to
come to a conclusion that whether they witnessed the incident or not. Moreover,
as per the reply filed by CBI on 16.11.2015, the CBI is also willing to examine eye
witnesses. Further, phone number of Narinder Singh S/o Surender Singh Granthi
is also on court record, as it was filed with protest petition , and the same can be
collected by CBI from the court or complainant to examine the said witness.
Thus, admittedly further investigation is required in the present case to examine
more eye wintesses of the incident, subject to their availability and investigation is
also required to find out whether the said witnesses were actually present at the
time of incident.
13.However, besides the examination of those witnesses who have been
mentioned in the charge sheet filed on 24 December 2014 and who as per CBI
were not examined as they were not traceable, there is one other aspect in the
present case which needs thorough investigation.
14.The statement made by witness Abhishek Verma discloses an active role
played by Jagdish Tytler in sending one Narinder Singh to Canada. The said
Narinder Singh is none other than the son of Surinder Singh Granthi, a key
witness in the present case against Jagdish Tytler. It cannot be shear coincidence
that Jagdish Tytler extended a helping hand to Narinder Singh in 2004-05.
If the facts disclosed by Abhishek Verma are true, then an inference may be
drawn by the court against Jagdih Tytler in the present case.
Thus, it becomes necessary to find out whether the facts disclosed by Abhishek
Verma are true or not.
15.Sh. H.S Phulka, Ld Senior Counsel for the complainant, in his argument
submitted that the facts disclosed by witness Abhishek Verma, clearly make out an
offence punishable under section 193 and 195A of Indian Penal Code and also
under the Money Laundering Act, thus CBI be directed to register a separate FIR
in this regard and undertake investigation.
16.The said argument was rebutted by Ld PP for the CBI on the ground that this
court being the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cannot direct CBI
Page No.4 of 7

to register FIR. It was also argued that offence under section 193 and 195A of the
Indian Penal Code are not attracted even as per the statement of Abhishek
Verma.
17.As far as offence under section 195A of IPC is concerned the same may not
be attracted in the facts of the present case. But, if the facts disclosed by Abhishek
Verma are found to be true, then offence punishable under section 193 and 201
IPC or abetment thereof besides criminal conspiracy2 may become applicable in
the facts of the present case. However, what offences are made out, would be
depend upon the result of investigation.
18.As regards argument of Ld. Senior Counsel Sh. H.S. Phoolka, that separate
FIR be registered under the said section by CBI, the court is of the opinion that the
said offences are part of the same incident and need to be investigated in same
FIR. Thus, CBI can and should investigate the said allegation of inducement to
witness Surinder Singh Granthi in this very case and no separate FIR is required
to be registered or ordered to registered in this regard.
19.In simple words, for example, if A has committed murder of B in presence of C
(sole eye witness) and in case A induces C to give false statement to police so as
to save himself and as a result of the same closure is filed by police, then the
police is required to investigate such inducement by A to C in the same case/FIR
and for that purpose no separate FIR is required to be registered. Even if during
such investigation C expires, the investigation in such inducement by A shall
continue, even if after death of C no evidence is left for proving that A committed
murder.
20.In this regard while dealing with section 201 IPC, it was held by Rajasthan
High Court in Kajju Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2006 Cri L.J. 4386 (Rajasthan)
that even if the prosecution fails to prove the principal offence against the main
accused, conviction under s.201 can still be independently recorded. In my
opinion the said ratio is applicable to other similar offences of IPC. It was so held
by Constitutional Bench Apex Court in 1953 in case titled Kalawati & Ranjit
2

U/s 120A and B IPC.

Page No.5 of 7

Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1953 Cr. L J 668.

21.Therefore in the opinion of the court thorough investigation is required to find
out whether statement given by Abhsihek Verma is true or not and investigation is
required to be conducted by CBI: 21.1.To find out whether in the year 1988 Abhishek Verma was editor of
magazine 'India Worldwide'.
21.2.To find out whether in the year 1988 Abhishek Verma obtained a contract of
Rs.50 Lakhs from Air India, when Jagdish Tytler was Civil Aviation Minister.
21.3.To find out whether Abhishek Verma was major share holder in Atlas
Interactive India Pvt Ltd and what was his role/status in the said company during
the relevant period.
21.4.To find out whether Atlas Systems Ltd, Montreal, Canada was a subsidiary
of Atlas Telecom Ltd.
21.5.To find out as to how many times Narinder Singh S/o Surinder Singh Granthi
applied for Canadian Visa and to collect the copies of all the relevant documents
in this regard.
21.6.To find out as to what assistance was provided by Atlas Systems Ltd,
Montreal, Canada to Narinder Singh for obtaining a Canadian Visa.
21.7.To find that as to when and on what grounds Canadian Visa was given to
Narinder Singh. To collect relevant documents in this regard.
21.8.To find out whether Narinder Singh ever committed any visa violations in
Canada. If yes, to obtain documents in this regard from Canadian Government.
21.9.To record statement of ASI Krishan of Delhi Police, who as per Abhishek
Verma was present in the car when Jagdish Tytler told Abhishek Verma that a deal
was struck by him with Surinder Singh Granthi, father of Narinder Singh as per
which hefty amount was paid to Surinder Singh Granthi besides settling his son
Narinder Singh.
21.10.To record statement of Narinder Singh (whose phone number has been
filed by complainant in the court in sealed cover) to find out the role, if any, played
by Jagdish Tytler and Abhishek Verma in helping him in obtaining Canadian Visa.
Page No.6 of 7

21.11.To conduct lie detection test upon witness Abhishek Verma, if required.
22.All these points mentioned by the court are just to enable CBI to find out the
truth i.e. whether Abhishek Verma has give a true statement or whether he has
given false statement because of some ulterior motives. The CBI is free to
investigate the matter by whatever mode and procedure suitable in the facts of the
case and the aforesaid points are only indicative of the kind of investigation that
can be undertaken by CBI to find out the truth.
23.The said points are not mentioned to direct the investigating agency to
investigate the matter in a particular manner. The purpose of investigation is to
unearth true facts and CBI may do all that is required to achieve that goal.
24.However, as closure report in this case has been filed several time, hence in
view of judgement titled Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Appeal of
Criminal 1687 of 2007 dated 7.12.2007 the court of the opinion that it would be in
the interest of justice if the investigation is monitored by the court on bi-monthly
basis (i.e. every two months) so that no aspect of the case is left uninvestigated.
25.With these direction, CBI is directed to conducted further investigation in the
present case.
26.Be listed for further proceedings on 02.02.2016.
(SAURABH PARTAP SINGH LALER)
ACMM (EAST)/KKD
04.12.2015

Page No.7 of 7