Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Chail Singh & Anr vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 25 August, 2023
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
58
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP (C)No. 2048/2022
Chail Singh & Anr. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: None.
q
vs
UT of J&K & Ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
ORDER
25.08.2023
01. Petitioners pray for writ of mandamus commanding respondents not to harass them and further direct the respondents no to call them in the Crime Branch without any authority of law or without issuing notice as envisaged under Section 41-A CrPC.
02. Briefly, stated the facts of case are that petitioners who are husband and wife, claim that they are living separately and his son namely Rajinder Singh is also living separately in Jammu who had never visited them. Petitioner no. 1 submits that he has given almost Rs. 8 lacs to his son for starting the business and thereafter, his son started living separately. His son started avoiding their phone calls and now he has decided not to call him. In the month of April, 2021, he came to Jammu for the checkup of his wife i.e. petitioner no. 2 and informed his son telephonically but he did not help them in the checkup. Even wife of his son is also associated the bad deeds of his son. She had shown disrespect towards his wife as well as his daughter due to which he decided to disinherit his son and in this regard a disinheritance deed dated 27.06.2022 was executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar, Udhampur. He further submits that after some time he and his wife came to know about the registration of FIR against his son by the Crime Branch Jammu, regarding his involvement in some offence and he was called by the respondent no. 2-Crime Branch Office Jammu and he disclosed that 2 WP(C) 2048/2022 his son does not reside with him and he was told by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, till the surrender of his son, he will be called by the respondents 2 and 3. He submits that he has requested the respondents that he has not committed any offence but he is being harassed by the respondents.
03. Objections have been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that petitioner no. 1 was called through proper channel by writing a letter dated 21.09.2021 to DFO, Batote, Ramban. He appeared before the Crime Branch, Jammu on 25.09.2021 and his statement was recorded. It is stated by the respondents that petitioners are in connection and regular touch with their son who frequently calls them through different mobile numbers which was disclosed by the petitioner no. 1 during investigation. Petitioner no. 1 disclosed that his son is still bachelor and he does not know whether he got married or not. Petitioner no. 1 was called to the office through proper channel on 21.09.2021 to know about the details andwhereabouts of his son and at the time of recording his statement, he assured the investigating agencies that he will bring his son within one week, as such, he was called again in the Crime Branch, Jammu. It is submitted that petitioner no. 2 was never summoned by the answering respondents but the petitioner no. 1, being a government employee and being a father, was called through proper channel but did not cooperate with the investigating agency as they are hiding their accused son, as such is an accomplice. The petitioner no. 1 is not disclosing the true facts and is misleading the answering respondents.
04. From the perusal of the objections filed by the respondents, it is clear that petitioner no. 1 was called by the Crime Branch to enquire from him about the whereabouts of his son and not for any other purpose. The son of the petitioners is absconding after he committed the offence for which FIR registered and which is being investigated by the Crime Branch. Calling the petitioner no. 1 to know the whereabouts of his son or to enquire from him regarding the FIR in question, does not amount to any violation of the rights of the petitioners because during investigation, Crime Branch has a right to enquire from any person who is supposed to have knowledge about the crime in question.
3 WP(C) 2048/2022
05. Leaned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that respondents would not call them until and unless they are required by the Police for investigation purpose. Petitioners would not be subjected to any harassment and proper notice would be given to them, when respondents required.
06. Since no one is present on behalf of the petitioners and in view of the statement of learned counsel for the respondents, this petition shall stand disposed of.
(Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Jammu 25.08.2023 Abinash