SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:-S.P. Bharucha, Y.K. Sabharwal and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 237 of 1998. D/d. 17.10.2001.

Sube Singh - Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- S. Muralidhar, Advocate.

For the Respondent :- Jai Prakash Dhanda, K.P. Singh, Dhan Singh Nagar, Anil Hooda and Mahabir Singh, Advocates.

ORDER

S.P. Bharucha, J. - We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. We are satisfied, upon the record and from what we have heard, that there is a case made out by the petitioner which needs to be enquired into and that the enquiry that has been made by Dr John V. George, IPS, Inspector General of Police, Law and Order, Haryana, as judged from his report, is unsatisfactory. We are of the view, therefore, that it is requisite that CBI should conduct an enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition and the affidavits filed by him and others in support of the writ petition. For the purpose, CBI may also take note of the affidavits that have been filed in reply on behalf of the respondents.

2. The enquiry shall be conducted expeditiously and a report made to this Court under sealed cover within four months.

3. The Registry shall send to the Director of CBI a copy of this order and a copy of the paper-book herein for necessary compliance.

4. Adjourned for five months.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner and his family shall not be, in any way, harassed, pending further orders.

6. In the course of the hearing, our attention was drawn to the additional affidavit of O.P. Singh, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Jind, Haryana, filed pursuant to the order of this Court dated 17-7-2001. The affidavit is dated 11-8-2001 and is verified on the basis that the averments made in paras 1 to 9 of the preliminary submissions and paras 1 to 12 thereof were true and correct to the deponents knowledge, based on information derived from the official record, which he believed to be correct. The verification clause adds, "Nothing has been concealed or stated incorrect therein." In paragraph 12 of the affidavit, the deponent has stated:

"The petitioner, instead of using his moral authority over his son to restrain him and discharging the duty of a responsible citizen to help the law-enforcing agencies, is misusing the process of law to facilitate his son's antisocial, parasitic bad criminal lifestyle. He is, apparently, an overground, sleeping partner of his son's gang, extending all possible help and support to him in his campaign to kill and loot the innocent civilians and now the police if they try to intervene, the son doing it with bullets and father with false allegations and litigation's."

7. We asked learned counsel for the respondents to tell us on what basis the deponent had averred that the petitioner was "an overground, sleeping partner of his son's gang, extending all possible help and support to him ?". We did so for the reason that had we been so satisfied, we would have considered closing this matter. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly stated that there was no factual basis for the averments quoted above.

8. It is, prima facie, clear that a false statement has been made on oath by the deponent and that it was intended to subvert the process of the law. We, therefore, issue to the deponent, O.P. Singh, suo motu, notice to show cause why action should not be taken against him and he should not be punished for contempt of court. The notice shall be returnable after four weeks.

.