IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6681 of 2009 Date of decision: May 4, 2009. Jivesh Kumar ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks a direction to initiate action against the respondents for their alleged action of keeping the petitioner in an illegal and unauthorized custody. He also seeks compensation in lieu thereof. It may be mentioned here that out of the seven respondents, respondents No.3 to 6 are the police officials of Police Station R.S. Pura, District Jammu whereas respondent No.7 is also a resident of a village in District Jammu. The State of Punjab as well as SHO, P.S. Shimla Puri, Ludhiana, of course, have been included as respondents No.1 & 2. The petition reveals that previously, a writ of habeas corpus bearing Crl. Writ Petition No.618 of 2008 was filed by the father of the petitioner seeking a direction to the police officials of P.S. R.S. Pura as well as SHO, PS Shimla Puri and SSP, Ludhiana to produce the detenue, namely, the present petitioner. In the said writ petition, this Court appointed a Warrant Officer who submitted his report dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P-1) and since the alleged detenue had already been released from the custody of respondents No.4 to 6, namely, the police officials of PS R.S. Pura, Jammu, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court with liberty to the petitioner “to seek appropriate remedy available to him in the law”. The present writ petition has accordingly been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that action should be taken against the police officials of P.S. R.S. Pura as well as SHO, P.S. Shimla Puri, Ludhiana. The entire claim is founded upon the report of the Warrant Officer dated 16.7.2008 (Annexure P-1), the relevant part whereof reads as follows:- “I also put my signatures in the Roznamcha about my visit in the Police Station. MHC told me that Jivesh Kumar was brought by the police under the instructions of Investing Officer in connection with the some application on two days earlier to 11.7.08 for questioning purposes from Ludhiana after informing police authorities at Ludhiana and after verification of facts of that application, the investigating officer who was handling that application sent back Jivesh Kumar through ASI Chattar Singh Saini to his house to be handed over to his parents after informing the police authorities Ludhiana and factum of Jivesh Kumar reaching home safely without any harassment and then duly confirmed on telephone by Rajinder Kumar, father of Jivesh Kumar. However, name of investing officer who was handling the enquiry/ application in which Jivesh Kumar was called was not disclosed by MHC. DR entry No.5 dated 12.7.08 was also recorded with rgard to bringing and sending back child Jivesh Kumar. In the Roznamcha of ht ePolice Station which is in Urdu scrip and copy of the same is annexed as (x) shri Ashok Kumar SHO, Incharge of the police station also confirmed the aforesaid facts. Respondents No.4 to 6 mentioned in the petition were not present in the Police Station at the time of my visit.” There is not an iota of evidence on record to suggest that the police authorities of P.S. Shimla Puri, Ludhiana were ever informed or there was any involvement and/or connivance of the SHO, P.S. Shimla Puri, Ludhiana. In these circumstance, no case to take any action against the police authorities within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is made out. Dismissed. May 04, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge