Intervention Application in Supreme Court – Sajjan Kumar Matter

Below is the text of the intervention application filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the victims Jagdish Kaur and Nirprit Kaur

~~ Kumar Saurabh/ Ramneek Singh


Mr. Phoolka’s Chamber




CRL.M.P. NO __________of 2010




SAJJAN KUMAR         …Petitioner


C.B.I.               …Respondent


1. Jagdish Kaur

W/o Late Shri Kehar Singh

R/o House No.4 Darshan Avenue

Danga Pidit colony GT Road Bypass

Amritsar (Punjab).      ….Applicant No.1

2. Nirprit Kaur

W/o Late Shri Dilbar Singh

R/o WZ-127/A,Street no 10-A,

Old Saheb Pura(M.B.S Nagar)

Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110018.

….Applicant No.2









  1. The present application is being filed by the applicants seeking leave of this Hon’ble Court to intervene in the present special leave petition arising out of judgment/order dated 19.07.2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi whereby the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the legality of framing of charge against the petitioner u/s 109/147/148/149/153-A/295/302/396/427/486/449/505 and 201 of I.P.C.
  2. The applicants are seeking intervention in the matter for the reason that the applicants are the victims in the matter currently before the Court of  M/s Sunita Gupta , ASJ , Karkrardooma, Delhi and  therefore the applicants are necessary and proper parties in as much as any order passed herein shall have a vital bearing on the rights and interest of the applicants.
  3. The applicant No.1 lost 5 members of her family including her husband and son during Anti Sikh Riots in Delhi. Her husband Kehar Singh was in the Indian Army when he became a victim of the frenzy of an unruly mob and was brutally killed in front of his wife i.e Jagdish Kaur ( Applicant no 1). The applicant No.2 Nirprit Kaur is a witness as well as a victim who lost her father in the same riots which had broken out after the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi.
  4. The Special Leave Petition was listed for hearing before this Hon’ble Court on 13.08.2010 and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the following order.

“Exemption allowed.

Issue notice returnable on 27th August, 2010.

Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.

Stay of trial till then.”

5.         That certain pertinent facts were not brought to the attention of this Hon’ble Court at the time of the passing of the order .  It is submitted that the examination in chief of the applicant No.1 Jagdish Kaur  started on 1.7.2010 and her cross examination started on 3.7.2010 as PW-1 and her Cross Examination continued for 16 hearings. On 13th August 2010 was the 17th hearing/day of Cross-Examination. Since last 3 hearings the defence lawyer for Petitioner had been assuring the trial court that he shall conclude the cross examination of the witness. The trial of the case is at the crucial stage.

6.          The applicant No.1 is an old widow aged about 70 years and is a patient of high B. P. During the hearing she had to be taken to Ganga Ram hospital twice due to her elevated Blood Pressure. She had been accompanied by a nurse during recording of her evidence to monitor her condition as her health could deteriorate at any time due to the high tension and changed atmosphere at the trial .

7.          In the large scale riots, which broke out after the assassination of Mrs. Indra Gandhi on 31.10.1984, the then Prime Minister of India on 31.10.1984, the husband, son, and cousins of the applicant No. 1 were killed by the unlawful assembly.  During the course of the proceedings before Justice Nanavati Commission, the Commission took note of the depositions/affidavit of the applicants and observed that many witnesses have stated about the involvement of Sajjan Kumar i.e. the petitioner.  It has also come on record that the applicant No. 1 and other aggrieved persons had reported to police about involvement of petitioner at the time of the brutal murders of their family members  but the police did not take down their complaint and petitioner was not put up for trial.

8.           The Commission concluded that there is credible material against Sajjan Kumar the petitioner and the Commission recommended  the Government to take further action and examine those cases where witnesses have accused the Petitioner of murder and yet no charge sheets had been filed  and the cases were terminated as untraced.   After considering the findings of Nanavati Commission, the Government of India directed the CBI to re-investigate the cases against the Petitioner including F.I.R. No. 416/84 dated 4.11.1984 of P.S. Delhi Cantt.  Accordingly, case F.I.R. No. 416/84 of P.S. Delhi Cantt. was re-registered by CBI as RC-24(S)2005-SCU.I/SCR.I on 22.11.2005 and investigation was taken up.

9.           It is submitted that the investigation revealed that petitioner instigated the unlawful assembly/mob by provoking it to kill all Sikhs   and in addition to that not even spare any Hindu who  provides shelter to Sikhs. The Petitioner gave provocative speeches, which promoted immediate and violent enmity amongst the public against Sikhs and disturbed the harmony between the two religious groups resulting in the killing of Sikhs and burning/looting of their houses/properties.

10.        That it is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was an M.P. in the year 1984 from outer Delhi constituency and enjoyed a position of strong power and denomination ,something he enjoys till date. At present his brother is the sitting M.P. from the same constituency.

11.        It is submitted that Petitioner is very powerful leader who wields great influence. The Delhi Police had been protecting the Petitioner from the very beginning , which is why the case stood transferred to C.B.I , who initiated are- investigation.

12          The influence of the petitioner is evident from the fact that a large number of victims had named him but the Police did not register any case against him. Name of petitioner figured in the inquiry reports carried out by the Human Rights Group. It is submitted that the former CJI J. S.M.SIKRI also conducted inquiry and the name of the Petitioner figured there as well. The Secretary to the Sikri Commission also gave his evidence before Nanavati Commission.

13.         The extent of the influence of the Petitioner can be seen from the fact that in one case registered against him on the complaint of one Smt. Anwar Kaur in the year 1990 , the jeeps of CBI were burnt when their team went to arrest him. Unfortunately he was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble High Court. At that time after he was arrested by CBI Team he was not allowed to be taken by the violent mob. Anwar Kaur was a witness to the killing of her husband Navin Singh. The said case did not relate to the role of the Petitioner as a whole and CBI did not investigate from that angle. The case was investigated only regarding the circumstances relating to the killing of Naveen Singh. It is submitted that the Anwar kaur’s case was also registered only after the recommendation of the Committee, which was consisted of a retired High Court Judge. The recommendation was made in 1987 but the case was registered in the year 1990 and charge sheet was filed in 1995.

14.        That the influence of the petitioner can be gauged from the fact that in an another case registered against the petitioner pertaining to Nangloi Police Station wherein the charge sheet was signed, prepared but even then the same has not been filed in the Court. The Charge Sheet has been prepared under Section 302 IPC on 8.4.1992. Till today charge sheet has not been filed before the Court by Delhi Police.

15.       That the Delhi Police has not filed any charge sheet against the petitioner despite a number of victims naming the petitioners in their complaints, affidavits, statements etc. On the recommendation of Jain Aggarwal Committee, police had to register some case against the petitioner but all the cases were closed and no charge sheet was ever filed against him.

16.         In Police Station Delhi Cantontment, as per the finding of Nanavati Commission the following killings took place.

“According to the police record 246 Sikhs were killed in this area between 31.10.1984 and 5.11.1984. it is stated by Carnage justice Committee that as many as 426 persons were brutally killed in this area by the rioting mobs. The Ahuja Committee in its report determined the number of death as 341. According to police record, 6 Gurdwaras, 345 houses, 110 shops and 45 vehicles were burnt. (Ahuja Committee was appointed by the Government to ascertain the numbers of death).

It further held “even though more than 340 Sikhs were killed in this area and a large number of house and properties were burnt, only 5 FIR’s were recorded by the police”.

17.        That a Division Bench of Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.02.2010 has directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of 6 months. As per directions of Division Bench and also in view of the suit that incident is 26 years old, the trial in the present case is proceeding on day to day basis .

18.         The applicant No. 1 had earlier challenged the order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide SLP (Criminal) No. 2770 of 2010. This Hon’ble Court vide order dated 29.3.2010, allowed the petitioner to file the SLP, though declined to interfere with the impugned High Court order. Copy of the order dated 29.3.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-1.

19.       In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, the applicants herein respectfully pray that they may be allowed to intervene in the matter since any order passed in the present petition will have direct bearing on the rights and interests of the applicants.


In view of facts and circumstances, stated hereinabove, it is, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

  1. allow the applicants to intervene in the present special leave petition; and
  1. pass any such of further order(s) that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case;




FILED ON:  20.08.2010