Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1372 (PNJ)

Madhu Khanna v. Union of India

2013-10-10

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2013
Judgment SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order passed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission dated 20.08.2010 in Complaint No. 7223 of 2009 filed by the petitioner. A further relief has been sought against respondent No. 4 for initiation of the appropriate departmental proceedings for misusing the powers and violating the human rights. On 25.09.2013, we had deferred the consideration of the matter to today after the counsel had apprised us of the contours of the dispute. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the impugned order, respondent No. 4 has been permitted to go scotfree though his conduct lest much to be desired, as he has shown unnecessary keen interest in giving criminal colour to a civil dispute and that could not be a coincidence as there were three separate incidents of the same referred to. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 had sought deferment till today. The said respondent No. 4 is present in Court. Learned counsel indicated that the said officer had a spotless career and would like to say something to the Court. However, the utterances of the officer were more aggravating and we were considering it appropriate to proceed further in the matter against respondent No. 4 when learned counsel requested that the matter be deferred for half an hour so that he can discuss the matter with his client. We may notice that after the initial utterances, which were completely inappropriate, respondent No. 4 did tender apology in Court. When we took up the matter again, an affidavit has been filed before us of the officer tendering unconditional apology in respect to the sequence of events referred to in the petition and deeply regret the same. The officer has assured this Court that in future, no chance would arise of any such occurrence and requested that the proceedings be dropped. All we can say that it is better late than never when the officer has realized his folly and tendered an apology to the petitioner and her son. If something wrong has happened, the prestige of an officer is nowhere reduced by accepting his mistake and saying sorry for the same. “Sorry” is a word which often acts as a balm in the most aggravating situation. If something wrong has happened, the prestige of an officer is nowhere reduced by accepting his mistake and saying sorry for the same. “Sorry” is a word which often acts as a balm in the most aggravating situation. Learned counsel, on instructions of the petitioner, who is present along with her son, also states that it may be appropriate to put a quietus to the matter and that the petitioner and her son were looking for at least somebody accept that something wrong has happened. We have emphasized on respondent No. 4 that being a senior officer, his views and conduct send a signal to the officers below. It is not the job of the police to meddle with the civil dispute. The State of Punjab has seen troubled times when police officers performed a difficult role. However, in the present scenario that cannot be a license to a police officer to meddle with the civil dispute. We are assured that the officer would be careful in future. In addition to the aforesaid, we, however, feel that at least partial cost of the litigation be borne by respondent No. 4 and we quantify the cost at Rs.5,000/. This amount be remitted to the petitioner and her son within 15 days. We make it clear that qua the dispute interse the petitioner and respondent No. 5 or by the State against the petitioner or respondent No. 4 would not be, in any way, affected by the order passed by us today. We are really not going into the other aspects where findings have arisen against the other parties, which are left open. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.