1991 Multani Murder Case: Big setbck to former DGP Sumedh Saini, SC refuses to quash FIR

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Pankaj Mithal said it would not like to interfere with the FIR given a chargesheet being filed in the case.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to quash a fresh FIR lodged against former Punjab Director General of Police Sumedh Singh Saini. Supreme Court quashed FIR in connection with the disappearance and murder of junior engineer Balwant Singh Multani in 1991. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Pankaj Mithal said it would not like to interfere with the FIR given a chargesheet being filed in the case.

However, the apex court said the observations and findings of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in its September 8, 2020 judgment will not stand in the way of proceedings in the trial court. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Saini, sought quashing of the FIR, saying it was lodged in 2020 several years after the alleged incident for political reasons.

He said this court has repeatedly granted relief to Saini who has been a respected officer and the court has also provided him protection from punitive action in the case. Justice Sundresh said since a chargesheet has been filed in the case, it cannot quash the FIR at this stage.

The bench said Saini can face the proceedings in the trial court and challenge it at an appropriate forum. On January 5, 2021, the apex court asked the Punjab government to produce the chargesheet filed in the fresh FIR lodged against Saini in the case.

The apex court had already granted anticipatory bail to Saini in the fresh FIR lodged in connection with the disappearance and murder of Multani in 1991. The apex court had granted anticipatory bail to Saini on December 3, 2020 in the fresh case lodged in connection with the 1991 incident.

It had set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court refusing to grant pre-arrest bail to Saini in the 33-year-old case. The apex court had said that long delay in lodging the FIR in the present case could be a valid ground for granting anticipatory bail.