Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 August, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIOIN NO.2886 OF 2011 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 22, 2012
Manpreet Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. S.L.Chander Shekhar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Addl.A.G., Punjab,
for the State.
Ms. Ashima Randhawa, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.6 and 7.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Through this petition, petitioner, Manpreet Singh, has prayed for issuance of writ of habeas corpus for release of his grand mother-respondent No.6, who statedly was kept in illegal confinement at Police Station B Division, Amritsar. Prayer for appointing Warrant Officer was also made. This Court, while issuing notice of motion, also appointed Warrant Officer with a direction to CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIOIN NO.2886 OF 2011 :{ 2 }:
search the detenue at Police Station B Division, Amritsar as well as at any other place to be pointed out by the petitioner. The Warrant Officer was directed to submit his report on the adjourned date. The Warrant Officer accordingly searched for the alleged detenue and found that detenue was present in the Police Station. The police officials present at the Police Station did make an attempt to explain her presence in a manner that she had come to enquire about an FIR No.175, dated 28.12.2010, and that she was not required by the police in any case. The Warrant Officer was also apprised that no case has been registered against the detenue. The detenue, as per the police officials, was free to leave the Police Station. The old lady, aged 70 years, was accordingly permitted to leave the Police Station.
When the case came up for hearing before this Court, a Criminal Misc. Application was filed by the petitioner, which revealed very disturbing state of affair. This was so noticed by the Court in its order dated 5.1.2012. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced below:-
"It is alleged that Manjit Kaur has been taken in custody soon after the departure of Warrant Officer on 29.12.2011 itself. This is stated to be done at the behest of respondent Nos.6 & 7. The Warrant Officer was informed about the illegal detention of Manjit Kaur as soon it was done. At that time, Warrant Officer had reached somewhere near Kartarpur, Distt. Jalandhar. The Warrant Officer was statedly informed that respondent Nos.4 & 5 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIOIN NO.2886 OF 2011 :{ 3 }:
along with respondent Nos.6 & 7 had picked Manjit Kaur along with the petitioner. It is alleged that Manjit Kaur, who is 70 years old, is given merciless beatings. Both Manjit Kaur and the petitioner were detained at the unknown place and they were kept in illegal custody. This was allegedly done to take revenge for filing habeas corpus petition. Both the detenues were kept in a dark room in this manner for a night without giving them food etc. It is disclosed that to justify this illegal action, the SHO(respondent No.4) has registered a false FIR on 29.12.2011 under Sections 447/511/34 IPC against Manjit Kaur and petitioner-Manpreet Singh."
Notice of this application was issued to the State counsel and the other respondents to file response to the averments made in the application. Respondent No.4, SHO, Police Station B Division, Amritsar, was present in person before the Court. The S.H.O. was asked to respond as his action prima-facie appeared motivated. He He submitted through State counsel that after departure of Warrant Officer, a report was received that Manjit Kaur and the petitioner were breaking open a lock of a house, on the basis of which FIR against them was registered. The petitioner as well as the released detenue lady were again taken in custody at 5.30 P.M. S.H.O. (respondent No.4) further informed the Court that the lady was in judicial custody. The State counsel at that stage pointed out that the petitioner as well as the lady detenue were released on bail, the offences being bailable. The Court viewed this situation seriously CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIOIN NO.2886 OF 2011 :{ 4 }:
and observed as under:-
"Offences for which the petitioner and Manjit Kaur are taken into custody just after departure of Warrant Officer admittedly are bailable. When asked to explain as to how the detenue and the petitioner were taken in custody for offences which were bailable, the answer given by respondent No.4 is that none came forward to furnish bail bonds for these persons. Where was the need to arrest and take the petitioner and Manjit Kaur in custody. This apparently has been done due to spite and to wreak vengeance. The conduct and the action of respondent No.4 is not only highly objectionable, but illegal and arbitrary, which has exceeded all bonds of fair plays. In fact, no words can be found to notice the impertinence on the part of respondent No.4 to behave in this manner. He has shown total defiance to law and being unmindful of this Court being seized of the issue, has arrogated himself to arrest the detenue got released by Warrant Officer. He has in fact challenged the power and majesty of this Court. Within hours of departure of Warrant Officer, he has again arrested old lady and this time the petitioner as well by registering bailable case against them. It is quite obvious and clear that this is done by the SHO (respondent No.4) by exceeding his authority and by showing scant respect to this Court. He appears to be carrying an attitude of, "he cares too hoots for judicial CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIOIN NO.2886 OF 2011 :{ 5 }:
order or proceedings before the High Court". Such a police officer cannot be expected to function fairly and independently. A case may be made out for initiating disciplinary as well as criminal proceedings against respondent No.4. To ensure fair inquiry against him and also for initiating criminal action, it would be just to relieve him of his appointment as S.H.O. Police Station B- Division, Amritsar. More appropriate would be to place him under suspension for showing scorn to the proceeding pending before this Court."
Consequently, enquiry against SHO, Police Station B Division, Amritsar, was initiated. In the meanwhile, Nadanjit Kaur, who is accused in the FIR No.175 dated 28.12.2010 was taken in custody for an offence under Section 302 IPC as Special Investigation Team constituted to enquire into the said FIR had found her blame-worthy. She was accused of committing murder of her husband, who is son of the lady detenue, whose release was sought. Respondent No.4 was placed under suspension. The key of the house in dispute was taken in custody by the police. Directions were issued to hand over the keys of the house to the detenue, who was mother of the person who was killed, leading to registration of FIR No.175.
During the course of further hearing on different dates, it revealed that the house in dispute was being occupied by the deceased husband of the accused in FIR No.175 and son of the detenue and both the ladies were claimants of the house and were CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIOIN NO.2886 OF 2011 :{ 6 }:
also claiming to be in possession thereof. Accordingly, directions were issued to hand over the keys of the house to the Commissioner Police, Amritsar, and parties were given liberty to approach the Civil Court or any appropriate authority to establish their possession or right to claim possession of the house in accordance with law. Enquiry report in the meantime was taken on record. The case was adjourned for filing of the status report in regard to the enquiry against the SHO.
On July 23, 2012, the State counsel informed the Court that the house, which is in dispute was partially being used as residence and partly to run a factory. Only the residential portion of the house was locked and issue was before the Court. The ground portion has been given on rent by the deceased. Otherwise the charge of murder had been framed against the wife, who was accused of the murder. The Court directed the arrangement to continue as was made till the Civil Court decided the pending dispute between the parties. The Commissioner of Police was given liberty to hand over the keys of upper portion of the house to a person, who ultimately is held entitled to the possession of that portion. It was also intimated that proceedings against SHO, respondent No.4, had been concluded. He was found guilty and imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments on temporary basis.
Since the basic relief claimed in the petition for release of the detenue alleged to be illegally detained had been satisfied and the case was kept pending primarily to ensure that proper action is taken against the SHO, who had violated the law and has defied the CRIMINAL WRIT PETITIOIN NO.2886 OF 2011 :{ 7 }:
orders passed by the Court, no further purpose apparently is left now to keep the petition pending. The detenue or the petitioner would be at liberty to take action, if they have a grievance about their illegal detention. They would also be at liberty to file any proceedings against the SHO, respondent No.4, for initiating a criminal action for illegal detention or registering the case against them, if it is false etc. The writ petition, however, is disposed of.
August 22, 2012 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE