Was ₹5 crore allegedly demanded to get a rape FIR cancelled, and why has Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann’s wife been named in the controversy? The High Court refused a CBI probe but found the competing allegations serious enough to require a fresh investigation by an officer unconnected with the case.

CHANDIGARH: A serious controversy involving an alleged rape FIR, claims of political influence and an alleged demand of ₹5 crore has reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

The matter arose from a petition filed on June 30 by the 55-year-old father of a woman. He alleged that Gurinder Singh alias Guri Chahal, a Mohali resident, had abducted and raped his daughter after allegedly promising marriage. The father further alleged that Chahal possessed private photographs of his daughter and was using them to blackmail her.

According to the petition, Chahal was arrested, but the father was dissatisfied with the manner in which the police investigated the case. He also alleged that Chahal was later released from jail.

The petition reportedly named Simranjit Singh Hundal, described as Chahal’s friend, and Amardeep Singh Grewal, described as a ‘proclaimed relative’ of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann’s wife, as respondents.

The father alleged that pressure was being placed on the Amritsar police to suppress the case. However, the controversy became more complicated because allegations were also being made from the accused side about the rape case itself.

Hundal had earlier approached the High Court on June 9 on behalf of Chahal. In that petition, Grewal was accused of demanding crores of rupees for settling what was described by that side as a ‘false’ rape case, allegedly by using his proximity to the Chief Minister’s wife.

Hundal sought protection of his life and liberty and also requested preservation of electronic evidence relating to allegations of “extortion, criminal intimidation, abuse of political influence and official machinery”.

Hundal further claimed that Chahal was facing a similar case in Mohali. His petition alleged that Grewal was involved in getting false rape FIRs registered and later using his connections to demand money for settling such cases. He also claimed that a complaint was submitted to the Mohali Senior Superintendent of Police on May 24, but no action followed.

The allegations, therefore, were not limited to whether the original rape accusation was properly investigated. Serious counter-allegations were also placed before the court about alleged misuse of criminal proceedings, money demands and political influence. At this stage, none of these competing allegations has been finally proved by a court.

Ranjit Singh, a retired judge and head of the Punjab Human Rights Organisation (PHRO), addressed a press conference in Chandigarh and said that the woman’s father had sought a CBI investigation because he believed that the local police were not properly investigating the case.

Referring specifically to the allegations contained in the petition, he said:

“It is alleged in the petition that the chief minister’s wife was involved in seeking Rs 5 crore from the accused for cancellation of the FIR. I am not saying this from my side. This is mentioned in the petition,”

He added that the petitioner had also placed certain evidence before the High Court.

The criminal case was registered in Amritsar on April 29 after the woman was allegedly abducted and raped. She was rescued on May 1, while Chahal was arrested on May 13.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of the father’s petition on July 20. It did not accept his request to transfer the investigation to the CBI. Instead, the court directed that a fresh investigation be conducted by a senior police officer who had never previously been connected with the case.

Justice Mandeep Pannu ordered:

“The Special Director General of Police shall nominate a senior gazetted police officer, who has not been associated with the investigation of the present case at any stage earlier, to conduct the investigation under her overall supervision,”

While examining the matter, the High Court considered not only the allegations made by the woman’s father but also the allegations raised by the opposite side.

The court noted that Hundal, although named as a respondent in the father’s petition, had himself alleged in separate proceedings that Grewal was closely associated with the Chief Minister’s wife and that efforts were being made to have the FIR cancelled.

Justice Pannu’s order recorded:

“The petition further alleges that Hundal himself claimed that a demand of ₹5 crore had been made by the wife of the chief minister for getting the FIR cancelled, and copies of the said writ petition, photographs of meetings and transcripts of conversations have been relied upon by the petitioners in support of such allegations,”

The High Court considered it significant that allegations concerning intervention by the Chief Minister’s wife and an alleged demand of around ₹4-5 crore for cancellation of the FIR appeared in both the petition filed by the woman’s father and the separate proceedings initiated from the other side.

The court, however, made it clear that merely recording these allegations did not mean that it had accepted them as true. Their correctness still required investigation and evidence.

Justice Pannu observed:

“However, it cannot be overlooked that such allegations, coupled with the fact that respondent No.6 (Hundal) admittedly claims to be pursuing the litigation on behalf of respondent No.5, (Chahal) have created a genuine apprehension in the minds of the petitioners regarding the fairness of the investigation.”

The allegations were strongly denied by the concerned parties. The High Court therefore had to balance competing claims without prejudging either the complainant or the accused.

Since the investigation was still continuing and neither a final report nor a cancellation report had been filed, the court found that it was not appropriate to decide the truth of the rival allegations at that stage.

The High Court also explained that transferring an investigation to the CBI is an exceptional step. Such a transfer cannot be ordered merely because allegations have been made against the local police.

At the same time, the court stressed an important principle of criminal justice: both the victim and the accused must be able to have confidence that an investigation is fair, independent and unaffected by external pressure.

Where the circumstances create a reasonable apprehension about the neutrality of the existing investigation, the court can order that another independent officer conduct the probe without necessarily transferring the entire case to the CBI.

Accordingly, the High Court directed that the investigation be entrusted to a senior gazetted police officer having no previous involvement with the matter. The investigation would remain under the overall supervision of the Special Director General of Police.

The controversy subsequently reached the National Human Rights Commission. The NHRC issued notices to Punjab’s Chief Secretary and police chief concerning a complaint over the alleged ₹5 crore demand and alleged political interference in the rape case.

NHRC member Priyank Kanoongo said that the Commission had also informed the Union Home Ministry about the issue. He described the allegations in brief terms:

“This is a very serious matter,”

The NHRC action followed a complaint filed by Legal Rights Observatory (LRO), which relied upon public statements made by retired judge Ranjit Singh regarding the alleged ₹5 crore demand and the alleged involvement of the Chief Minister’s wife.

According to the NHRC notice, the LRO sought independent verification because of “the seriousness of the allegation and its potential implications for the administration of criminal justice”.

Ranjit Singh also referred to a separate petition involving an Army unit and a real estate developer accused of constructing a hotel in an Amritsar area where construction was allegedly prohibited. He alleged that a relative of the Chief Minister was protecting the developer and called upon the Punjab government to examine both matters.

Meanwhile, Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann’s wife Gurpreet Kaur was reported to have sent a legal notice to the retired judge, requiring him to respond within 24 hours or face legal proceedings. Justice Singh reportedly said that he had not yet received the notice but would respond if it was served upon him.

The case now presents allegations from multiple directions: a father alleging that his daughter’s rape case was not properly investigated, and persons connected with the accused alleging that a supposedly false rape case was being used for an enormous monetary demand.

The High Court has not declared either version correct. Its order instead focuses on the integrity of the investigation. This distinction is important because an FIR is an accusation, not a finding of guilt, while allegations of extortion or political interference also cannot be treated as established facts without investigation.

The direction for a fresh probe by an officer who had no previous role in the matter is therefore significant for both sides. A criminal investigation must protect a genuine complainant, but it must equally ensure that an accused person is not subjected to pressure, financial demands or misuse of criminal machinery.

With the NHRC now seeking answers from senior Punjab authorities, the allegations concerning the ₹5 crore demand and possible political influence are likely to face further scrutiny. The ultimate legal position will depend upon what the independent investigation establishes and what evidence can withstand judicial examination.

SOURCE: https://thefederal.com/

LAWS / LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A rape FIR is an allegation, not a conviction. The accused man also deserves a fair and independent investigation.
• The accused side alleged that a supposedly false rape case was being used to demand crores for settlement and FIR cancellation.
• The High Court found the competing allegations serious enough to question the perceived fairness of the existing investigation.
• The Court refused a CBI probe but ordered a fresh investigation by a senior officer who had never handled the case earlier.
• When criminal law, political influence and an alleged ₹5 crore demand appear in the same case, the danger to an accused man’s liberty, reputation and finances cannot be brushed aside.