Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SRI KAPTAN SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. versus RAJINDER SINGH AND ANR.

Decided
3 August 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 512 · 1995 INSC 440

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Unnumbered paragraph

Leave granted.

p. 513, margin B

Unnumbered paragraph

The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Police or the appropriate authority to transfer his complaint dated April 23, 1991 for investigation by an independent police agency other than the local police. The High Court dismissed the writ petition summarily on November 3, 1992. Thus this appeal by Special Leave.

p. 513, margin C

Unnumbered paragraph

We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. Unfortunately the appellant was done to death and the trail with regard to his murder is pending decision in the appropriate Session Court. Therefore, we need not go into the merits in that behalf. The grievance of the appellant-Late Sri Kaptan Singh was that he was the owner of properties mentioned in the writ petition; when he was kept in the police custody in connection with the crime imputed to him, some person holding himself to be his power of attorney was alienating his property and was inducting third parties into possession. In spite of this repeated complaints made to the authorities, after collusion of the local police in those activities, no action in that behalf was taken by the police officer. It would appear that earlier to the complaint made by the petitioner-appellant to the Commissioner of Police, the local police seems to have investigated and a report in that behalf was sent which now filed as Annexure 1 & 2 to the counter affidavit sworn by one Aiok Kumar, D.C.P., South Delhi. It would indicate that the dispute is one of acute disputed questions of fact. Under these circumstances, we cannot satisfactorily adjudicate the dispute in this appeal. Therefore, we leave open the controversy relegating the appellant's legal representative of Sri Kaptan Singh to have the matter adjudicated in an appropriate forum. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. G.N. Appeals dismissed.

p. 513, margin D