The Telangana High Court on Wednesday directed that the members of the police party, who were allegedly responsible for the killing of four persons accused of gang-raping and murdering a veterinarian in 2019, be heard as intervenors at the time of final hearing of the writ petitions filed in connection with the ‘Disha encounter’ case.
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti pronounced the verdict disposing of a batch of interlocutory applications filed by members of the police party and the veterinarian’s father in different PIL petitions and a writ petition connected to ‘Disha encounter’. Telangana HC had been hearing a batch of six PIL pleas and a writ petition since the killing of the four accused in Disha case in an ‘exchange of fire’ with the Cyberabad police party while being taken to the crime scene on December 6, 2019.
The PIL pleas sought different reliefs. The common prayer was a re-investigation into ‘Disha encounter’ by a specialised investigating agency like CBI and registration of murder case against the police personnel responsible for the killing of the four youngsters who were the accused in the gang-rape and murder of the 26-year-old veterinarian. The V.S. Sirpurkar commission, constituted by by the Supreme Court to inquire into the killing of the four accused after hearing a writ petition, found fault with police personnel and recommended registration of murder case under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code in its report submitted in January 2022.
In May 2022, the SC passed an order directing the Telangana HC to revive the first PIL petition connected to Disha encounter. The entire report of the Sirpurkar commission was transferred to the HC for adjudication. Meanwhile, members of the police party against whom the Sirpurkar Commission wanted murder case to be registered moved the HC by filing interlocutory applications in the different PIL petitions to give them an opportunity to be heard. Along with them, the veterinarian’s father, Telangana State Police Officers’ Association and Retired Police Officers Association of Telugu States filed the applications to be heard.
The persons who filed the PIL petitions contended that the argument of the members of the police party that a second case cannot be registered for the same crime was misconceived. The Sirpurkar Commission report disclosed that a cognizable offence was committed by the police party and the same should be used as basis for issuing FIR against the police personnel concerned, they argued.
Senior counsel Desai Prakash Reddy, who was appointed as amicus curiae in the matter, told the HC that FIR ought to have been registered against the police personnel concerned. The bench headed by the CJ observed that the HC was empowered to order fresh investigation into the crime under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
However, under Rule 16 of the Writ Proceedings Rules-1977, the HC “has the discretion to permit a person who appears to the Court to be a proper person to be heard”, the bench noted. “In the peculiar facts of the case, we are inclined to permit the implead petitioners to intervene in these proceedings,” the order said. This was “to ensure fairness and justice in the proceedings, particularly when the interest of justice demand a proper representation of affected parties or view points,” the verdict said.
