Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nand Kishore vs Inspector Sukhwinder Singh And Ors. on 17 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2007)147PLR222
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court alleging willful disobedience and violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Dr. Vineet Gupta v. State of Punjab 1998 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 221, for handcuffing the petitioner, keeping the petitioner in illegal detention for whole night and for physically torturing him.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that Station House Officer Sukhwinder Singh along with other police personnel tried to take forcible possession of a plot belonging to one Kanwaljit Kaur wife of Shri Mangal Singh on 22.09.2003. Mangal Singh was illegally detained and tortured. The said Mangal Singh approached the petitioner, who is stated to be a social reformist and District Secretary of Anti Crime and Corruption Bureau of India. On the basis of the said complaint, a First Information Report was registered against Station House Officer Sukhwinder Singh, and his brother on 2.6.2005. No investigation was made and report furnished to the Court. The petitioner along with the Smt. Kanwaljit Kaur and other respectable were proceeding to meet the higher officers to take strict action against respondent No. 1, the police personnel stopped the procession and started wielding canes on the prcessionists. The petitioner and Kanwaljit Kaur were badly beaten by the police personnel on 21.4.2006. When the petitioner and Kanwaljit Kaur were undergoing treatment in Government Hospital, Amritsar, the petitioner was detained and tortured for the whole night and in the morning registered a false and frivolous F.I.R. No. 47 dated 21.04.2006 under Sections 323, 341, 379, 356, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner alleged that to insult and to defame the petitioner, respondents No. 1 to 4 handcuffed the petitioner by twisting his arms towards his back and took him through the whole city of Amritsar and in Court Complex, Amritsar. One day remand of the petitioner was given to the respondents. An application was filed by the police for using handcuff but the said application was declined by the learned trial Court on 22.04.2006. On 23.04.2006, a request for extension of remand was made. The arms of the petitioner were again twisted towards his back but the media covered the highhandedness of the police of handcuffing the petitioner by twisting his arms to his back. The petitioner moved an application for medical examination. The medical examination was allowed. It was alleged that handcuffing of the petitioner by twisting his arms to his back is violative of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Dr. Vineeta Gupta v. State of Punjab 1998 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 221.
3. Reply by way of affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 Sukhwinder Singh. It has been pointed out that the petitioner presented a distorted and tainted version to gain undue sympathy of this Court. The present petition has been filed with ulterior motive which is to harass and humiliate the respondents with the sole objective of putting undue pressure on them and to prevent them from discharging their official duties in a fair and proper manner. It has been pointed out that the petitioner is a habitual offender/litigant involved in numerous criminal cases running into hundreds of cases. About 230 criminal cases stand instituted by the petitioner against various persons including some high ranking officers of police department. The details of some criminal cases registered against the petitioner were disclosed in Para No. 4 of the reply. The fact that an application was filed to seek permission to produce the petitioner by handcuffing shows that the respondents were well aware of their duty and no direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court was flouted. Had the petitioner been handcuffed, there was no necessity on their part to move such an application. It was pointed out that the petitioner is not a rustic individual who is not aware of his rights as he is involved in hundreds of criminal cases either instituted by or against him. Had the petitioner been handcuffed, he would have pointed out the same before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class when he was produced in the Court on 22.4.2006. Still further, photographs relied upon by the petitioner are fabricated taking use of the technology. The allegation of forcible dispossession from the plot belonging to Mangal Singh was denied. It was pointed out that one Jagir Kaur was owner of plot measuring 150 Sq. yards situated in village Sultanwind, Mangal Singh relied upon agreement to sell dated 12.8.1992. However, the said plot was sold by Jagir Kaur to one Darshan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 1.7.1994. Darshan Singh executed a Special Power of Attorney dated 10.4.1995 in favour of one Avtar Singh. Said Avtar Singh executed a Special Power of Attorney dated 31.10.1995 in favour of Sukhwinder Singh in terms of the authority given in Special Power of Attorney dated 10.4.1995. On the basis of the said authority, registered sale deed dated 7.2.2000 has been executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of his brother Gurbax Singh. It has been further pointed out that a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell filed by Mangal Singh stands decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dafed 6:1.2000 but appeal against the said judgment and decree is pending before the learned District Judge, Amritsar. It has also been pointed out that challan has been presented in the F.I.R. lodged by Mangal Singh and that the petitioner has connived with Mangal Singh. It has been further stated that in the medico-legal report, it has been found that the injuries suffered by the petitioner are simple in nature and apparently caused by a friendly hand. F.I.R. No. 47 dated 21.04.2006 is being investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-II, Amritsar, after offence under Section 3(I)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was added.
4. After Searing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition lacks bona fide. It is the case of the petitioner that he was handcuffed on 22.4.2006 and 23.04.2006. On both dates, he was produced before the learned trial Magistrate but the petitioner has not made any grievance in respect of the alleged handcuffing. The present petition has been filed on 11.07.2006 i.e., after more than six weeks of the alleged handcuffing and torture. In the replication, the petitioner has not denied the number of cases filed but asserted that they are outcome of the outburst of the general public against the police personnel. The cases referred to by respondent No. 1 were said to be false cases planted on the petitioner.
5. Had the petitioner been handcuffed, the natural and normal expected behaviour of the petitioner would have been to make grievance before the learned trial Magistrate. The trial Magistrate was the best forum available for the petitioner to point out that he has been handcuffed. The petitioner is well aware of the procedure and the laws. Failure to make grievance before the learned trial Magistrate is a strong circumstance to return a finding that the allegation lacks credibility and cannot be believed. The allegations are afterthought levelled with a view to settle personal scores. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as Raj Kumari and Anr. v. S.H.O. Noida and Ors. has declined to issue contempt notice when grievance in respect of violation of the directions in D.K. Basu 's case (supra) was not made on the day of arrest before the Magistrate. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the directions issued in D.K. Basu's case (supra) were flouted or were not complied with by the police.
6. In view of the above, I do not find that it is a fit case where proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should be initiated against the respondents
7. Dismissed.