Sharan Ahuja v. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 08.08.2023

Pronounced on: 16.08.2023 Sharan Ahuja ......... PeƟƟoner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ......... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Mr. S.K. Bokolia, Advocate for the peƟƟoner. Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) On receipt of an e-mail addressed to the official address of this Court way back on 15.07.2019, this Court had proceeded in the maƩer by appoinƟng a warrant officer vide order dated 18.07.2019 and the maƩer is sƟll pending for the last four years. 2.

The said email reads as follows:

"We are resident of village Arayian Wala Kalan, District Faridkot. Sir, we are suffering from the illegal harassment by the Thana Sadar police, Faridkot, specially by S.H.O. Gurmeet Singh. Without any reason he picked (also beaten) Gurmeet Singh s/o Sooba Singh & Raman Kumar s/o Tarsem Lal & many others. S.H.O. had picked them from 2 days in police custody and without FIR whereas the big smugglers of the area are never picked by the S.H.O. And if anybody complaints about the main smugglers of drugs, no acƟon is being taken by the police whereas innocent people are picked. We beg you to take right acƟon against the S.H.O. Sadar Faridkot and we will be very thankful to you."

3.

The concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, had filed a detailed reply on 12.08.2019 through his affidavit. As per the said reply, one detenue Amandeep Singh

was got released vide DDR No. 31 dated 18.07.2019 and its copy is annexed as Annexure R-1 to the reply.

4.

As para 2 of the reply, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, PPS Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Faridkot, who probed the maƩer of illegal custody of Amandeep Singh, stated that as per the explanaƟon of concerned Inspector Gurmeet Singh, they had called Amandeep Singh to the police staƟon in connecƟon with a complaint No. 786/LPC but the detenue ploƩed a scene in order show his presence in police staƟon and got himself released through the warrant officer. 5.

However, the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, found that Inspector Gurmeet Singh did not dealt with the complaint against Amandeep Singh property and consequently, Inspector Gurmeet Singh was transferred to police lines and a departmental enquiry was iniƟated against him. As per para 4, in addiƟon to the present complaint, similar type of complaints had been received against Inspector Gurmeet Singh and all those complaints were directed to be inquired with the present complaint.

6.

As reflected in order dated 26.07.2019, counsel for the peƟƟoner leveled some allegaƟons of taking Rs. 3000/- from the peƟƟoner and Rs. 4000/- from the detenue illegally.

7.

Since this Court is prima facie, concerned with the illegal detenƟon of the detenue, now detenue has been released, as such, primary purpose of entertaining an email as a habeas corpus peƟƟon has been fully saƟsfied. Regarding allegaƟons of taking money illegally, liberty is reserved to the complainant-peƟƟoner to take appropriate acƟon or file a complaint to the appropriate authoriƟes in accordance with law. It is clarified that since the allegaƟons regarding taking money illegally were made in the month of July, 2019, as such if peƟƟoner chooses to file complaint, in that case, limitaƟon for taking appropriate remedy will start from today in accordance with law.

8.

Although, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed details orders regarding the allegaƟons against the warrant officer but in a writ jurisdicƟon, this Court should not convert itself into a fact finding commiƩee or an enquiry Commission more so when separate remedies are available in this regard. Even the Registry of this Court is aware of such allegaƟons because a judicial order in this regard was passed on 26.07.2019. It is for all the aggrieved persons to take up the maƩer separately and this Court does not intend to proceed further for other acƟon in this writ peƟƟon. Whether the allegaƟons of taking money illegally were concocted or genuine is a subject maƩer of inquiry for which there are separate procedure. Certainly, the writ jurisdicƟon under ArƟcle 226 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India should not be extended that far when there are specifically provisions in this regard.

9.

The present peƟƟon stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applicaƟons, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 16.08.2023 JyoƟ-II Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No