Punjab-Haryana High Court
Puran Singh vs Registrar General, Punjab And Haryana ... on 18 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001CRILJ1353
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
ORDER
1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take decision on his application for according sanction for prosecution of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Chandigarh for taking cognizance of his arrest made by the police.
2. We have heard the petitioner in person and perused the papers.
3. According to the petitioner, he was arrested on 2-4-1998 by S.I. Diwan Singh without warrant. According the petitioner, his arrest was without following the provisions of Section 41 of Criminal Procedure Code and against law only on the plea that petitioner refused to give his specimen signature and judicial remand of 14 days was asked for. Petitioner was presented before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class who bound the petitioner with the bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- and surety for the same amount. No other documents were produced before learned Magistrate and the case is still continuing. It is the contention of the petitioner that this action of learned JMFC is vlolative of Section 166 of I.P.C. He has referred to the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994 Cri LJ 1981 (SC). The Supreme Court has given the following directions in this case :-
1. An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have one friend, relative other person who is known to him or likely to taken an interest in his welfare told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.
2. The Police Officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right.
3. An entry shall be required to be made in the Diary as to who was informed of the arrest. These protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly.
27. It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person is produced to satisfy himself that these requirements have P-3 been complied with.
28. The above requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrest till legal provisions are made in this behalf. These requirements shall be in addition to the rights of the arrested persons found in the various Police Manuals.
29. These requirements are not exhaustive. The Director General of Police of all the States in India shall issue necessary instructions requiring due observance of these requirements. In addition, departmental instructions he shall also be issued that a police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary, the reasons for making the arrest.
4. If the petitioner was not satisfied by the order of learned JMIC he could have challenged the order in revision. Having not done so, he cannot now agitate against the order. Moreover, it is not shown as to how the directions are floated by the learned JMIC by granting by judicial remand.
5. We do not find any reason to accept the pray of the petitioner. The case against the petitioner is still going on. If the petitioner was aggrieved by taking of cognizance of the case and the grant of judicial remand, he was not remediless. He could have filed revision petition. On questioning, the petitioner state that he has not filed any revision petition.
6. The application for sanction made by the petitioner is addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court, Legal Remembrancer, Haryana and Legal Rememberancer, U.T. Chandigarh. The text of the application (An-nexure P-1) is as under :-
Sir, Sanction under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code may kindly be accorded to file a criminal case Under Section 166, I.P.C. against Sh. A.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh for taking cognizance of my arrest by Sh. Diwan Singh, S.I., E.O. Wing, Chandigarh on 2-4-1998 in the case in F.I.R. No. 149, dt. 22-10-1997 Under Sections 465 and 469, I.P.C. State v. Puran Singh in violation of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that no person should be arrested on mere suspicious. I hope that early sanction shall be given in the matter.
7. The application is vague. Moreover, it is not shown either in the application or in this petition that the petitioner had raised objection to the grant of judicial remand or asked for quashing of proceedings against him. It is also admitted that no action has been taken by the petitioner for challenging the order granting judicial remand.
8. This petition of the petitioner is misconceived. If a party goes on filing complaints for any judicial order passed by the Judge, then no Court would be able to function. Moreover, it is not shown that the ruling on which the petitioner relies was shown to the learned JMIC at the time of passing the order of his judicial remand.
9. In view of the above position, we do not find any reason by grant direction to the respondents as prayed for. This writ petition is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed.