Crl.O.C.P. No.3 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.O.C.P. No.3 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 10, 2011 Courts on its own motion Versus Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the complainant. Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Respondent in person. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. While hearing Criminal Writ Petition No.604 of 2005, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.1.2011 made the reference for initiating proceedings of criminal contempt against Mr.Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police. The aforesaid Criminal Writ Petition for issuing writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, was filed by one Kanwal Kumar alleging therein that Rajesh Kumar son of Rajpal and Satnam Singh son of Mohan Singh were illegally picked up and detained by the respondent in order to extract unlawful financial gain from them. This Court vide order dated 15.10.2005 appointed a Warrant Officer and directed him to visit the Police Station Village Bhikhiwind Police District Tarn Taran, District Amritsar in order to find out the whereabouts of the alleged detenues. The Warrant Officer reached the aforesaid Police Station on 15.10.2005 Crl.O.C.P. No.3 of 2011 2 at 10.10 p.m. and found the aforesaid two persons in detention. The respondent, who came present in the Police Station, stated that the detenues had been arrested in a theft case and their arrest had been shown at Police Post, Kachha Pacca falling under the jurisdiction of P.S. Bhikhiwind and due to non-availability of lock-up/ proper security in the police post, they were brought to the Police Station by the ASI Vinod Kumar at 8.30 p.m. Since the Warrant Officder did not find any document concerning the detention of the detenues at Police Station, he repeatedly asked the respondent to release them. The Warrant Officer further reported that the respondent declined to release both the detenues. In the report, it has also been reported that the respondent misbehaved with the Warrant Officer and had also refused to accept the notice given by the Warrant Officer. In the reply, the respondent had asserted that Rajesh Kumar, detenue was arrested in case FIR No.145 dated 6.9.2005 registered under Section 379/411 IPC at Police Station Bhikhiwind and it was so mentioned in the Roznamcha vide DDR No.15 dated 15.10.2005 in Police Post Kacha pacca at 4.30 p.m. As far as other detenue Satnam Singh is concerned, it has been asserted by the respondent that he was neither wanted in any case nor any case was registered against him at Police Station Bhikhiwind, as alleged by the petitioner. It has been further averred by the respondent that Satnam Singh might have entered the Police Station in a planned way along with persons gathered in Police Station in conspiracy with the petitioner and Rajesh Kumar, detenue. Thus, there was no question to pick up said Satnam Singh by the answering respondent. It is admitted position that Rajesh Kumar, detenue was arrested in case FIR No.145 dated 6.9.2005 registered under Section 379/411 IPC at Police Station Bhikhiwind in which he is facing the trial. His arrest was shown in DDR No.15 dated 15.10.2005 in Police Post Kachha Pacca at 4.30 p.m. The learned Crl.O.C.P. No.3 of 2011 3 Single Judge while making the reference has highlighted two facts that on the directions of the Warrant Officer, the respondent did not release the detenues; and secondly that when the Warrant Officer made a request to the respondent to accept the notice, he had refused to do so. Therefore, the said conduct of the respondent amounts to omission and commission on his part which constitute a criminal contempt. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, who filed the aforesaid habeas corpus petition, the State counsel as well as respondent No.3, who is present in the Court, and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to initiate the contempt proceedings against the respondent. Undisputedly, when Rajesh Kumar, detenue was found in detention in the Police Station, his arrest was shown in case FIR No.145 dated 6.9.2005 registered under Section 379/411 IPC at Police Station Bhikhiwind. He has faced the charges in the said case. As far as the other detenue Satnam Singh is concerned, as per the stand taken by the respondent, the possibility of his entering in the Police Station in conspiracy with the petitioner and the other detenue Rajesh Kumar, cannot be ruled out. According to him, he was not under detention. He was at liberty to go. As far as non-compliance of the directions of the Warrant Officer for releasing the detenue is concerned, in our opinion, the Warrant Officer has exceeded from his powers while ordering the release of the detenue as such like directions are beyond the authority of the Warrant Officer. Regarding allegation of misbehaviour and not receiving the notice, the same have been denied. Without going into the factual aspect on this issue, keeping in view the fact that more than six years have passed and the explanation given by the respondent in the reply as well as in the Court, we are not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent. Crl.O.C.P. No.3 of 2011 4 The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule against the contemner/respondent is discharged. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 10, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE