Allahabad High Court
Man Singh S/O Sri Ram Lakhan vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home, ... on 27 January, 2006
Author: M.C. Jain
Bench: M.C. Jain, Vinod Prasad
JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. We have heard Sri D.S. Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Tripathi, A.G.A. for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Sri G.S. Hajela counsel for C.B.I. has also been heard.
2. The petitioner Man Singh has filed this habeas corpus petition through his father Ram Lakhan. The prayer made is for a direction to the respondents to produce the petitioner Man Singh before this Court and to set him free from their illegal custody. Respondenf No. 3 is Station House Officer, Police Station Karvi District Chitrakoot who has been impleaded by name also as respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 5 is Constable Rajendra Shukla posted at Police Station Karvi aforesaid and respondent No. 6 is one Chandra Prakash Dwivedi son of Babu Lal Dwivedi. Respondent No. l is State of U.P. whereas respondent No. 2 is Superintendent of Police of District Chitrakcot.
3. In the writ petition serious allegatons have been made against respondents No. 3 to 6 to the effect that on 6.2.2005 at about 3 P.M. the respondents No. 5 and 6 came to the house of the petitioner and asked his father (Ram Lakhan) that respondent No. 4 needed his vehicle-Bolero bearing registration No. UP-96 6720 for two days for visiting Allahabad in an invitation. As the driver of the vehicle was not available and the petitioner was also not there, Ram Lakhan-father of the petitioner told respondents No. 5 and 6 that as soon as one e f them (either the driver or the petitioner) was available, the vehicle would be sent., Then respondent No. 5 told the father of the petitioner that his ( petitioner's) brother Budh Vilas was sitting at Bedipuliya who could carry the vehicle. The petitioners father agreed. The respondents No. 5 and 6 then carried the aforesaid vehicle through Budh Vilas. When Budh Vilas reached the Police Station before the Respondent No. 4, the latter asked the former to leave the vehicle alongvvith its- original papers. Budh Vilas left the papers and vehicle at Police Station Kotwali, Karvi and returned to his village. The allegations proceeded that after two days, i.e., on 8.2.2005, at about 10 A.M., the respondents No. 5 and 6 again came to the house of the petitioner and informed his father that his vehicle had returned at the Police Station and, therefore, he should depute his son Man Singh (petitioner) to take back the vehicle. They also informed the father of the petitioner that he (Man Singh) was also required to give statement in respect of a vehicle Marshal bearing registration No. U.P.-96/3096 belonging to one Rajju, uncle of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner 'went with them On motorcycle bearing No. U.P. 96-7151 but he did not return to his village thereafter. His father went to the Police Station on 9.2.2005 and inquired the whereabouts of his son from respondent No. 4. Surprisingly, however, respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner's fattier that he (petitioner) did not come to him and his vehicle was there in Kotwali. The Petitioner Man Singh was said to be missing since then and in spite of efforts, he could not be traced out. The father of the petitioner also contacted respondents No. 5 and 6 about his son Man Singh (petitioner) but they told him that they had handed over Man Singh to respondent No. 4 whereafter they had no concern with him. According to them, they had only complied with the order of respondent No. 4. These material allegations in the Writ Petition were contained in paragraphs No. 6 to 11 of the Writ Petition. It is significant to note that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 11 (as also of some other paragraphs not relevant to be stated here) have been verified through affidavit sworn on 19.4.2005 on the basis of personal knowledge by the leponent Ram Lakhan-father of the petitioner Man Singh. The said affidavit has been filed by Ram Lakhan in support of the writ petition.
4. Respondent No. 4 Sharad Pratap Singh, S.H.O., P.S. Karvi averred in paragraph 4 of his counter affidavit that in fact, a case crime No. 38 of 2005 was registered under Section 216A I.P.C. along with Section 14 of Dacoity Affected Ara Act, at Police Station Kotwali, Karvi, District Chitrakoot in which during investigation on 5.2.2005 accused Narottam Garg, S/o Shyam Lal informed that Mehdi Hasan and Man Singh Kurmi (petitioner) supplied rifle for Rs. 2.5,000/- to Nattboo Chamar--a history sheeter, who was a hardened criminal. During the course of investigation of the aforesaid matter, the petitioner Man Singh was called for interrogation on 6.2.2005 and 8.2.2005, but he did not turn up at Police Station Kotwali Karvi. District Chitrakoot. Regarding interrogation dated 5.2.2005 of accused Narottam Garg, an entry had already been made in G.D. at 9.30 P.M. P.S. Kotwali, Karvi. The petitioner Man Singh did not come to P.S. Kotwali, Karvi, for interrogation till 12.2.2005. On 13.2.2005, the respondent No. 4 along with other police personnel was hunting to get information regarding accused of case crime No. 318 of 2004, under Sections 396 and 120B I.P.C. and while returning, he found Bolero Jeep No. U.P. 96-6720 parked near R.T.O. check post unclaimed. Even after inquiry, no person was found claiming the ownership of the aforesaid vehicle. Hence the same was brought to Police Station Kotwali, Karvi, regarding which G.D. entry was-made at 1.10 P.M. on 13.2.2005. Thereafter it was revealed that the said vehicle belonged to the petitioner Man Singh son of Ram Lakhan. The allegations contrary to it were totally incorrect, malicious and misconceived. He swore that the petitioner or his father had never been asked to hand over the Bolero Jeep in question to him (respondent No. 4).
5. Respondent No. 5 Constable Rajendra Shukla also filed separate counter affidavit and denied the allegations made by Ram Lakhan in the petititon. By order dated 11.5.2005, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot. (Respondent No. 2) to conduct an inquiry in respect of the allegations made in the petition and to submit his report together with his counter affidavit, The matter was viewed seriously since the petitioner continued to be missing and not traceable.
6. Pursuant to the Court's order dated 11.5.2005, respondent No. 2, Superintendent of Polite, Chitrakoot, namely, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh filed an affidavit in compliance of the aforesaid order, stating that the allegations made in the Writ Petition in respect of the incident of 6.2.2005 were found to be incorrect on inquiry and the alleged incident had, in fact, not taken place. In respect of whereabouts of petitioner Man Singh, he averred that he was still untraceable and no clear information had been received about his whereabouts. His report or the statements of the witnesses recorded during inquiry had, however, not been filed and further time was granted to file supplementary counter affidavit disclosing the steps taken by the authorities regarding the missing petitioner Man Singh vide order dated 26.7.2005, Thereafter, the inquiry report was filed with the affidavit of Sri Brijesh Kumar Misra, Deputy S.P., Chitrakoot in compliance of order dated 26.7.2005.
7. On 19.9.2005, on perusal of the inquiry report and on hearing parties' counsel, this Court did not find the same to be satisfactory and directed the C.B.I, to investigate into the matter and submit a report, Startling facts have surfaced through the investigation made by the CBI, after registering a Criminal Case No. RC-19 (S)/2005-SIU.I Under Section 120B read with Section 365 I.P.C. and Section 365 I.P.C., P.S. Karvi Kotwali, District Chitrakoot. The gist of the same is related hereunder.
(i) During investigation of case crime No. 38 of 2005, Under Section 216A I.P.C. and Section 14 of U.P. Dacoity Affected Area Act, Police Station Kotwali, Karvi,. one of the arrested accused, namely, Menhdi Hasan disclosed that he alongwith the petitioner Man Singh had sold a rifle to one Nathu, a member of dreaded dacoit gang. Mehadi Hasan accused reiterated this fact before the CBI also.
(ii) After knowing the facum of arrest of the Mehandi Hasan by the Karvi Police on 6.2.2005, the petitioner Man Singh went underground to escape his arrest and interrogation.
(iii) Ram Lakhan father of the petitioner with a view to harass the local police authorities and to avoid the arrest of the petitioner cooked up a story and filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot for registering a criminal case against respondent No. 4. Later on, he also filed the instant Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court on the same basis.
(iv) The respondent No. 4 Sharad Pratap Singh along with other police personnel left the Police Station on 6.2.2005 in search of most wanted criminals of Thokiya Gang, Every minute details of the departure of police team and return to police station on 7.2.2005 have been found duly recorded in police record, The allegation of the petitioner was falsified and it was established that Constable Rajinder Shukla, respondent No. 5 was with the said team from 8.30. A.M. of 6.2.2005 to 2.30 A.M. of 7.2.2005. So, he could not have visited Ranipur Bhat on 6.2.2005 as alleged by Ram Lakhan.
(v) In fact, respondents No. 5 and 6 went to the house of the petitioner on 8.2.2005 at about 2.30 P.M. to call him for interrogation in connection with Case Crime No. 38 of 2005. Since the petitioner could not be found, they returned back to the Police Station. Two independent witnesses also affirmed the fact before the CBI that while respondents No. 5 and 6 were returning from the house of the petitioner on 8.2.2005 the petitioner was not with them.
(vi) In fact, on 13.2.2005 at 1 about P.M., while returning to Police Station after patrolling, the police team saw Bolero vehicle parked on the road near RTO check post, unclaimed. The vehicle was taken to Kotwali Karvi and necesssary entries were made in the relevant record.
(vii) Constable Rajendra Shukla (respondent No. 5), on 13.2.2005 was deputed to summon Man Singh petitioner and his brother Budh Bilas. The petitioner was not found at his house and Budh Vilas and Ram Lakhan refused to accept the notice.
(viii) On 27.11.2005 an information was received that the petitioner had been seen near Satna Railway Station. When the CBI team reached Satna on 28.11.2005. It was found that the petitioner Man Singh was arrested by RPF Satna from Diesel Shed, Satna Railway Station in Crime No. 1396/2005 under Section 147/149 Railways Act and had been sent to Jabalpur to be produced before Special Railway Magistrate. The Magistrate released the petitioner after imposing a fine of Rs. 50/-on him. He was recovered the same day (28.11.2005) by the CBI team at 2 PM outside the court complex and thereafter brought to Karvi, Chitrakoot.
(ix) On 29.11.2005, the efforts of CBI to hand over the petitioner to his family members at the office of Tehsildar, Karvi remained unsucessful due to non-cooperative attitude of his family. However, on 30.11.2005 in the presence of Tehsildar Karvi, media persons and some other independent witnesses, the petitioner was handed over to his wife Smt. Snail Kumari at his native village Ranipur Bhatt.
(x) The conduct of Ram Lakhan-father of petitioner Man Singh had been quite non-cooperative with the CBI during the course of investigation. The investigation further revealed that Man Singh had stayed in the house of his Mausa Ram Charan, father-in-law Bhawanideen at Baghelbari and with other relatives at Panchampur. This fact was well within the knowledge of the petitioner's father Ram Lakhan.
(xi) During investigation Man Singh himself admitted that he had run away on 8.2.2005 itself due to fear of Karwi Police. While absconding, he visited Ludhiana, Surat and stayed at several places.
8. It is abundantly clear that Ram Lakhan (father of the petitioner Man Singh) supported totally false allegations contained in the Writ Petition through his affidavit sworn on the basis of personal knowledge. Obviously, he defiled solemn judicial proceedings and made a mockery of the same. He had the temerity to reiterate blatantly false allegations of his initial affidavit sworn on 19.4.2005 by means of two rejoinder affidavits on the basis of personal knowledge. A totally false picture was presented before the Court by him to misguide it and the course of law concerning his son Man Singh. Viewing the matter with all seriousness on the basis of the sworn affidavit of Ram Lakhan (father of the petitioner Man Singh), this Court even directed an investigation to be made by the premier investigating agency of the country, i.e., C.B.I, which surfaced the reality and exposed totally false, baseless and mischievous allegations levelled by the petitioner's father Ram Lakhan in his affidavit dated 19.4.2005. The said allegations were repeated and reiterated without any qualm of conscience through two rejoinder affidavits dated 10.5.2005.
9. It is prima facie manifest from the discussion made hereinabove that Ram Lakhan (father of the petitioner Man Singh) committed grossest perjury by making false statement on oath through his initial affidavit sworn on 19.4.2005 filed in support of the writ petition and two rejoinder affidavits sworn on 10.5.2005 basing the same on his personal knowledge. Needless to say, he was legally bound to state the truth. He deliberately made false statement on oath through his affidavits aforesaid to misguide this Court and the course of law, apart from unnecessarily causing great embarrassment to the police authorities. The CBI had to devote a lot of time incurring expenditure from public exchequer to unearth the reality.
10. Perjury is a serious offence and has to be curbed with a strong hand. It has to be dealt with sternly. Filing of the instant Writ Petition by the petitioner's father Ram Lakhan on the basis of totally false allegations supported by false affidavits sworn on personal knowledge is really shocking.
11. As per the provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C., the cognizance for an offence under Section 193 I.P.C. can be taken only on a complaint in writing by the court in which the offence is committed.
12. We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Petition, imposing special costs of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), on Ram Lakh an S/o Desh Raj (R/o Village Ranipur Bhat, Police Station Kotwali Karwi, District Chitrakoot) through whom this petition has been filed. The said costs of Rs. 25,000/- shall be deposited by him with High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court, Allahabad within one month from today. In case of default on his part, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
13. We also direct the Registrar General of this Court to file a complaint against Ram Lakhan son of Desh Raj, R/o Village Ranipur Bhat, Police Station Kotwali Karwi, District Chitrakoot for the offence of perjury committed by him, which is punishable under Section 193 I.P.C. The complaint shall be accompanied by the certified copies of the following documents:
1. Copy of this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 34060 of 2005 along with affidavit of Ram Lakhan sworn on 19.4.2005 filed in support of the petition.
2. Counter Affidavits filed in this Court by the respondents No. 4 and 5, namely, Sri Sharad Pratap Singh and Constable Rajendra Shukla respectively, sworn on 3.5.2005.
3. Copy of two rejoinder affidavits sworn by Ram Lakhan on 10.5.2005 and filed in this Court.
4. Copy of Status Report of CBI in compliance of order dated 19.9.2005 of this Court along with its enclosures:
5. Copy of the present order.
14. The Registrar General shall do the needful within one month and report compliance which shall be placed before this Bench on 3.3.2006.