State eats its words on victim’s kin seeking ₹2 cr to strike compromise
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday sought response from the Haryana government on an application moved by the father of Junaid Khan, who was lynched to death by a mob suspecting him of being a “beef eater” aboard a Mathura-bound train in Faridabad district on June 22 this year.
The response was sought after Junaid’s father Jalaludin told the court that the government’s claim of their readiness for a compromise with the accused in lieu of ₹2 crore and 3 acres of land was “false and baseless and it was an attempt to malign their image”.
The government had made the claim orally on Thursday before a high court bench during the hearing of petition filed by Jalaludin who had sought CBI probe into his son’s murder.
The allegation is in gross defamation of the family, the petitioner said, adding it is clear from the allegations there was “mala fide intent” on part of the government. The panchayats demanding compromise were held illegally, he said. He did not participate in these panchayats despite pressure and that the government be asked as to how these panchayats were held in a local government school, the petitioner said.
‘COMPROMISE’ NOT MENTIONED IN PAPER
On the other hand the formal reply submitted by Haryana government does not find any mention of state’s claims that family demanded ₹2 crore for settlement. The reply was submitted by Mohinder Singh, deputy superintendent of police (DSP railways), Faridabad. He has submitted that probe was conducted in an impartial manner and accused have been arrested and some of them booked for murder charges.
The challan has been filed and the trial court has already framed charges. The petition is not maintenable as investigation has concluded. Singh has stated alleging that petition was filed to “prolong the trial”. He also submitted that the petitioner did not raise issues with regard to probe at the time of filing of challan and framing of charges. The government has also claimed that the fight took place for the seat and during altercation derogatory words were uttered by the accused.