Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Son Of Sh.Chander Pal vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 31 January, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Writ Petition No.154 of 2012
Date of decision: 31.1.2012
Amit son of Sh.Chander Pal ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Mahabir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Param Preet Singh Paul, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
By filing this petition, the petitioner had sought issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for release of the detenues mentioned in para No.2 of the writ petition from the alleged illegal custody of respondents No.4 and 5 by appointing a Warrant Officer.
The case came up for hearing 20.1.2012. On that day, the petitioner appeared in person and made a statement before this Court. Keeping in view his statement and the averments made in this petition, this Court passed the following order:
"Vide this petition, petitioner is seeking release of the detenus as mentioned in para 2 of the petition who are alleged to be his family members and near relatives.
Petitioner has appeared in person and made a statement before this Court which is recorded in vernacular language (i.e.in Hindi).Petitioner stated that respondent No.5 called bad elements and threatened that if the detenus tried to run away, they will be thrown Crl.Writ Petition No.154 of 2012 -2- in the brick kiln, as the owner has so ordered, he had gone to the Police Station eight days earlier. The owner had telephoned the police, that they should not be heard. Police had threatened them and has told to go away. We had gone to Police Station Dehlon. We want to take our children at home.
Keeping in view the facts of the petition as well as statement of the petitioner, let a response of the respondents be called for.
Notice of motion for 25.1.2012.
Reply, if any, be filed before the date fixed. It shall be responsibility of the Senior Senior Superintendent of Police,Ludhiana to serve respondents No.4 and 5.
Let a copy of this order be served upon Deputy Commissioner Ludhiana and Senior Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, forthwith".
In pursuance of the aforesaid order, reply by way of affidavit of Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana was filed. According to the said reply, there was no detenue detained by respondents No.4 and 5, as alleged. On 25.1.2012, this Court passed the following order:
"Reply by way of affidavit of Deputy Commissioner Ludhiana has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record.
Petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the Registrar Judicial of this Court as security towards the costs which may be imposed upon the petitioner for filing a petition on false averments. Crl.Writ Petition No.154 of 2012 -3-
Let the petitioner be present in Court on 31.1.2012.
It shall be the duty of the counsel for the petitioner to inform his client."
The petitioner is not present in Court.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the registered A.D. Letter sent to the petitioner along with postal receipts for compliance of the order dated 25.1.2012. However, according to him, the petitioner is not responding to his telephone call.
In this view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has filed this petition on the basis of false averments with an ulterior motive to abuse the process of law.
Thus, this petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-. The Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana are directed to apprehend the petitioner and produce him before this Court through bailable warrants.
Copy of this order be handed over to the State counsel for necessary compliance.
List on 15.3.2012.
January 31, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE