Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 832 (PNJ)

Courts on its own motion v. Hardeep Singh

2009-04-29

K.S.GAREWAL, NAWAB SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J.:- Charge of criminal contempt against a police official is a serious one. It is for this reason that we have gone into this case in some detail. 2. SI Hardeep Singh was posted as SHO Police Station Patti, District Tarn Taran in September, 2007. Deep Kumar of Patti filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (habeas corpus petition) to direct SI Hardeep Singh to release his father Raj Pal Singh and brother-in-law Raj Kumar from his illegal custody. The petition was filed on September 30, 2007 (Sunday). The petitioner gave some background of his family and described the reasons why SI Hardeep Singh was upset with him. 3. The petitioner’s father Raj Pal Singh ran a small shop in Patti but later shifted the shop to Bhangala, District Tarn Taran where the petitioner’s mother had taken up sewa of Thakur Dawara Mandir, a historic temple in Bhangala. SI Hardeep Singh called the petitioner and asked him to look after his guests who were to visit the temple. The respondent’s guests did visit the temple but “day before yesterday” (September 28), the respondent called the petitioner and complained that his parents did not give special treatment to his guests. They shall be taught a lesson. 4. “Yesterday” (September 29) the petitioner’s brother-in-law came from Delhi alongwith his wife. At the same time the respondent also came to their house with some constables and took the petitioner’s brotherin- law with him, leaving a message that he would teach a lesson to the petitioner and his father. The petitioner met the respondent at 9 p.m. but he refused to release his brother-in-law. “Today” (September 30) the petitioner’s father Raj Pal Singh went to the respondent for the release of Raj Kumar but he was also detained by the respondent. 5. It was pleaded that the respondent demanded Rs. 1 lac from the petitioner and his brother-in-law. The petitioner was a poor person and unable to pay. He did request the respondent to release Raj Pal Singh and Raj Kumar but the respondent flatly refused. The above petition was supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. 6. 5. It was pleaded that the respondent demanded Rs. 1 lac from the petitioner and his brother-in-law. The petitioner was a poor person and unable to pay. He did request the respondent to release Raj Pal Singh and Raj Kumar but the respondent flatly refused. The above petition was supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. 6. On the basis of the above, the Hon’ble Single Judge appointed a warrant officer to search for the detenues Raj Pal Singh and Raj Kumar at Police Station City, Patti or at any other place pointed out by the petitioner. If these persons were found in illegal custody, they were to be got released. 7. The warrant officer’s report dated October 1, 2007 was to the effect that when he was on the way for compliance of the order dated September 29, 2007 (sic), Deep Kumar-petitioner told him that Raj Kumar had been released. 8. The warrant officer alongwith Judge Kumar of Patti continued on their way and reached Police Station, City Patti. Raj Pal Singh detenue was found locked in police lock up. The warrant officer waited for half an hour before the respondent arrived at the Police Station. The warrant officer was told that a case under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. had been registered against Raj Pal Singh in Police Post Sadar (Rural), Patti, vide report 33 dated September 30, 2007 and since there was no lock-up at Police Post Sadar (Rural), Raj Pal Singh had been kept in Police Station, City Patti. 9. The warrant officer inquired from Raj Pal Singh about his detention and learnt that Raj Pal Singh had been detained since 6 p.m. on September 30, 2007. He had not been arrested by any police official of Police Post Sadar (Rural), Patti. Raj Pal Singh further told the warrant officer that he had not been disclosed the case under which he has been detained in the police lock-up. 10. The warrant officer then went to Police Post Sadar (Rural), Patti alongwith Judge Kumar and on checking found entry regarding Raj Pal’s arrest in Daily Diary Report 33 dated September 30, 2007. However, the warrants officer found no entry in the roznamcha maintained in Police Station City Patti, with regard to Raj Pal’s detention in lock-up. 11. We would not like to detain ourselves any further on the question, whether SI Hardeep Singh has committed criminal contempt or not. However, the warrants officer found no entry in the roznamcha maintained in Police Station City Patti, with regard to Raj Pal’s detention in lock-up. 11. We would not like to detain ourselves any further on the question, whether SI Hardeep Singh has committed criminal contempt or not. Suffice it to say that there are some glaring circumstances which do cast some doubt on the warrant officer’s report. The petition was filed on September 30, 2007, the order was passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge on that day itself and yet the warrant officer is roaming about with an order dated September 29, 2007. 12. DDR 44 dated October 1, 2007 relates to the report entered by the warrant officer, Shri K.L. Bansal, regarding his arrival and departure. In this report as well the warrant officer states that “in compliance with the order dated 29.9.2007 passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Aggarwal in Crl. Writ Petition No. 1074/07 Deep Kumar Vs. Pb State and another, I alongwith Judge Kumar s/o Joginder Pal resident of Patti searched for Raj Pal Singh and Raj Kumar and on search Raj Pal detenue mentioned in the petition, has been found in police lock up and he has stated that he has been detained since 6 PM today.” 13. In warrant officer’s report, DDR 44 has been mentioned as having been entered on 1.10.2007 at 12.15 p.m. Shri Krishan Lal Bansal had relied on an order dated September 29, 2007 which does not exist. He states that the detenue was detained since 6 p.m. “today” (October 1) when he made the entry in the DDR of 1.10.2007 at 12.15 p.m. (presumably in the afternoon) but even if it is taken as 12.15 p.m. (after mid night) it is still 1.10.2007. Therefore, how could he say that the detenue had been detained since 6 p.m. “today”. Warrant officers must act diligently and not in a casual manner because human rights of citizens are to be protected. If the warrant officers neglect their duty, rights of citizens will be at stake and the relief which they come to this court to claim under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall remain illusory. We are unable to appreciate how SI Hardeep Singh has committed criminal contempt of the court. It was the finding of the bench that the petitioner overreached the court. We are unable to appreciate how SI Hardeep Singh has committed criminal contempt of the court. It was the finding of the bench that the petitioner overreached the court. Apparently, an inquiry had been marked to CJM, Tarn Taran who returned a finding against SI Hardeep Singh that a criminal case registered vide report 33 dated September 30, 2009 was false and ante-timed. But the events as unfolded in the warrant officer’s report also cast a poor light on what happened at Patti on the night of September 30. In any event a police officer can detain any individual for 24 hours. It is only thereafter that the detention would become illegal. In the present case the period of detention was less than 24 hours. Therefore, even if CJM found against the respondent, 24 hours have to pass before a detention case be labelled wrongful or contumacious. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to proceed with the petition. Rule is discharged. --------------