The Supreme Court of India, in its verdict dated January 5, 2024, delivered a decisive judgment in the case of Gurdev Singh Bhalla versus the State of Punjab and others. The ruling, articulated by the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal, stems from a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the appellant, Gurdev Singh Bhalla. Bhalla contested the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, dated March 23, 2023, which dismissed his Criminal Revision against the Special Judge's order.

The legal dispute originated from the actions of the Special Judge in Bathinda, who, under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, summoned Bhalla and three other police officials based on a complaint lodged by Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd., Bathinda, in 2012. The complaint led to the arrest of Devraj Miglani, and Bhalla, serving as an Inspector posted in Bathinda, was tasked with investigating the case. Subsequently, Puneet Kumar Miglani, the son of the accused Devraj, alleged a demand for money by police officials, including Bhalla.

Justice Nath, in delivering the judgment, meticulously outlined the pertinent facts of the case. The appellant's legal challenge primarily hinged on the absence of sanction and alleged inconsistencies in the complaint. Bhalla's counsel contended that the First Information Report (FIR) only mentioned a demand for Rs. 50,000, while later allegations were increased to Rs. 24 lakhs. Moreover, it was asserted that the informant harbored personal animosity towards Bhalla for testifying against his father.

Addressing these contentions, Justice Nath stated, "The argument mainly advanced by the counsel for the appellant that the FIR mentioned only about Rs.50,000/- whereas the subsequent story of Rs.24 lakhs had been set up only to brow-beat the appellant being annoyed with the appellant because he gave evidence against his father, may be difficult to accept."

The judgment underscored the consistent testimony of the informant and other witnesses, corroborating the prosecution's case. Justice Nath concluded, "In view of the discussion made above, there appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case as against the appellant. We, accordingly, are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed."

Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that its observations should not influence the Trial Court in deciding the case on its merits.

Case: Gurdev Singh Bhalla Vs the State of Punjab and others,

Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2024(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 11654/2023.

Click to read/download Judgment.