Cr.O.C.P. No.4 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.O.C.P. No.4 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 03, 2011 Court on its own motion .....PETITIONER Versus Amrik Singh, ASI ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A. N. JINDAL --- Present: Mr. S.S. Bhinder, DAG, Punjab Amicus Curiae. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the contemner. Mr. R.K. Dadwal, Advocate, for the complainant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. These contempt proceedings were initiated against Amrik Singh, ASI, RPF, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, who was respondent no.6 in Crl.W.P. No.596 of 2006, on a reference made under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') by this Court with regard to an occurrence which alleged to have happened with the Warrant Officer appointed by this Court. In this case, one Rai Singh son of Kehar Singh, resident of village Dadial, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, filed a petition (Crl.W.P.No.596 of 2006) for issuing a writ of habeas corpus alleging therein that on 5.6.2006 respondents No.4 to 6 have illegally detained Cr.O.C.P. No.4 of 2007 -2- Jaswinder Kumar, driver of his jeep bearing No. PB-07-H-4675, along with the said jeep. In para 8 of the petition it was further alleged that from the very same day the detenu along with vehicle was shifted to Police Post RPF, Mukerian where the aforesaid respondents kept the said vehicle and Jaswinder Kumar in illegal custody. This Criminal Writ Petition was filed after 21 days of the alleged detention, i.e., 26.06.2006. On 26.6.2006, the following order was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court:- “This is a petition for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for searching the detenu Jaswinder Kumar son of Om Parkash, resident of village Dadial, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur alongwith Trax Pick Up No.PB-07-H-4675 from the illegal custody of respondents No.5 and 6. Notice of motion for 11.7.2006. Meanwhile, let a Warrant Officer be appointed to search for the detenu alongwith above-mentioned vehicle, at the place/places, indicated by the petitioner. In case, it is found that the detenu and/or the afore-mentioned vehicle are not required in any case, the Warrant Officer shall get them released forthwith and submit his report to this Court before the next date. The fee of the Warrant Officer shall be borne by the petitioner.” In pursuance of the aforesaid order, an officer of this Court was appointed the Warrant Officer. He was required to visit the place of detention of the alleged detenu i.e. Police Post, RPF, Mukerian or any other place indicated by the petitioner. In compliance with the said order, the Warrant Officer straight-away searched the GRP office and found that the alleged detenu was sitting in a room on the back of the office of ASI Avtar Singh, which was bolted from outside. Thereafter on further search he found Cr.O.C.P. No.4 of 2007 -3- that on the back of the GRP office the alleged jeep was also parked. Thereupon, ASI Avtar Singh disclosed that the alleged detenu was not detained by the GRP. He further disclosed that the aforesaid vehicle was parked by RPF personnel and entry in this regard was made by him in the DDR. The Warrant Officer alleged to have got the detenu released. These facts have been mentioned by the Warrant Officer in his report. After getting the detenu released, the duty of the Warrant Officer was complete and he was supposed to bring this fact to the notice of this Court, but by exceeding his powers/authority the Warrant Officer went to Police Post RPF at Railway Station, Mukerian in order to verify for which offence the said vehicle was detained. When he went to Police Post RPF, Mukerian, some unpleasant incident had taken place. The Warrant Officer further reported that ASI Amrik Singh (respondent No.6), the alleged contemner, who was the incharge of Police Post RPF, Mukerian, was under the influence of liquor and he had misbehaved with him. For the alleged misbehaviour, the learned Single Judge made the reference under Section 15 of the Act for initiating contempt proceedings against respondent No.6. In pursuance of the contempt notice issued to respondent No.6, he filed reply by way of affidavit in which he has stated that neither he misbehaved with the Warrant Officer on the intervening night of 26/27.6.2006 nor took away the identity card of the Warrant Officer. It has been further stated that on 26.6.2006 the Warrant Officer along with the petitioner and his 10-15 supporters reached the RPF Post and on receiving the message, he reached the RPF Post. He further came to know that these Cr.O.C.P. No.4 of 2007 -4- people had also visited GRP Post. Upon this, the respondent requested the person with white shirt to show his identity card. On this, petitioner Rai Singh and his supporters became furious and manhandled with the respondent and Constable Surinder Kumar. Other articles lying in the RPF Post were also broken. In the meantime, Warrant Officer had left the RPF Post. After hearing the raula, the other railway staff present on the spot reached the Police Post, RPF and with their intervention the respondent and Constable Surinder Kumar were got disentangled from petitioner Rai Singh and his party. In this regard, the intimation was sent to the GRP to register a case. The GRP informed the RPF to take action on their own level, accordingly, complaint no.251 dated 27.6.2006 u/s 145, 146 and 180-G of the Railway Act was registered with the RPF Post and statements of various persons were recorded. The respondent has denied that he was under the influence of liquor when he reached RPF Post, Mukerian on the night of 26/27.6.2006. It has also been stated that the respondent did not use contemptuous language against the High Court nor snatched identity card of the Warrant Officer, and has highest regard to the orders of this Court and towards the Warrant Officer appointed by this Court. In the last, the respondent has stated that if inadvertently because of any act on his part any harassment had occurred to the Warrant Officer, he tenders unqualified apology for the same. He also tenders unqualified apology to this Hon'ble Court if at all any act or conduct on his part amounts to contempt of this Hon'ble Court. Earlier, the learned Single Judge, while making the reference under Section 15 of the Act for an inquiry and trial of respondent No.6 Cr.O.C.P. No.4 of 2007 -5- Amrik Singh for punishment under Section 12 of the Act, had also taken into consideration the replies submitted by respondent No.6 and the added respondents No.7 to 12 in the aforesaid Crl.Writ Petition. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.7 to 12, it was disclosed that on 5.6.2006 one Shamsher Singh, a gateman was posted at Level Crossing No. C-86 near Railway Station, Dasuya. When the said level crossing was closed for the passage of the train at 1030 hrs., the jeep in question driven rashly and negligently struck against the gate and the matter was reported to the officers of the Railway Protection Force. Meanwhile, the driver of the vehicle managed to run away from the spot after leaving the jeep in an abandoned state. On receipt of the information, a DDR was registered against the owner of the jeep whose name was unknown. Thereafter, on the basis of the registration number of the jeep, the enquiry was conducted and the information was sought from the DTO office by the Railway Protection Force on 21.6.2006. The name of the owner of the vehicle was disclosed by the District Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur. Thereupon, SI Pyare Lal issued summons to petitioner Rai Singh to produce the documents of the said vehicle and to be present before him on 26.6.2006. It has been further stated that instead of appearing before SI Pyare Lal, the petitioner filed the criminal writ petition in this Court levelling false allegations. It is the stand that actually the driver was never taken into custody and only the jeep in question, which was left in an abandoned state, was taken into custody and a case no.219/2006 was registered against the unknown driver of the jeep. The petitioner Rai Singh was not aware of the distinction between Government Railway Police and the Railway Protection Force, which is Cr.O.C.P. No.4 of 2007 -6- working under the Central Government and he took the Warrant Officer to the Government Railway Police post with large number of persons including Jaswinder Kumar, and by taking the benefit of huge gathering, Jaswinder Kumar was asked to sneak into the room of GRP office and one of the persons accompanying the petitioner had bolted the room from outside, and it was shown by the Warrant Officer that the alleged detenu was found in the room of GRP office. During the pendency of these contempt proceedings, it has been stated that on September 6, 2007 the contemner went to the Warrant Officer and shown his unconditional apology if he had offended him by any words used by him. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Rai Singh, the contemner and Mr. S.S. Bhinder, learned DAG, Punjab, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, to assist this Court and have carefully gone through the contents of the reference, the report of the Warrant Officer, the averments made in the habeas corpus petition and the reply filed by respondent No.6 as well as the reply filed by the added respondents No.7 to 12, though no allegations have been levelled against them. Firstly we are not convinced with the averments made by the petitioner Rai Singh that the alleged detenu was in custody of respondents No.4 to 6 along with his vehicle since 5.6.2006. It is a fact that the petition for habeas corpus was filed on 26.6.2006, i.e., after 21 days of the alleged detention. Neither in the petition nor during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has denied that after 5.6.2006 and till 25.6.2006 no written complaint whatsoever was either made to the senior police Cr.O.C.P. No.4 of 2007 -7- officials or to the State or the Railway Protection Force. Secondly, it appears that when the jeep in question was found lying abandoned at level crossing No.C-86 near Railway Station, Dasuya after strucking against the gate, it was taken into possession on 5.6.2006 and thereafter Railway Protection Force in order to search out the name of the owner of the jeep sent request to the DTO office. On receiving the information regarding the ownership of the jeep from the DTO office, notice was issued to petitioner Rai Singh so as to produce the documents of the jeep and to be present before SI Pyare Lal on 26.6.2006. The petitioner instead of appearing before the said Enquiry Officer, straight-away filed the aforesaid Criminal Writ Petition before this Court. The averments made by the petitioner do not inspire any confidence. Without going into this aspect of the matter, we are of the opinion that once the Warrant Officer had reached the premises of the GRP office, though he was not supposed to reach first there, and the alleged detenu was found in the room situated on the back side of the office of GRP, his duty was over after getting the detenu released. It is admitted fact that the detenu was not found in the custody of respondent No.6, and he was never detained by RPF official. It is highly doubtful whether the alleged detenu was ever detained by GRP personnel. Further, when Avtar Singh (GRP official) had informed the Warrant Officer that the jeep in question was put in their custody by the RPF personnel, where the alleged incident had taken place, and in this regard a DDR was lodged, the Warrant Officer was not supposed to go to the RPF office to verify this fact. If, after getting free the detenu, the Warrant Officer had not visited the RPF office in order to verify the fact that the jeep in question was wanted by the RPF in any Cr.O.C.P. No.4 of 2007 -8- case or not, the unpleasant situation could not have arisen. Under the writ of habeas corpus only a person who is alleged to be in illegal custody could have been released and not the property. Keeping in view all the aforesaid facts, without going deep into the matter, and keeping in view the fact that the factum of the alleged misbehaviour has been controverted and particularly that respondent No.6 has tendered unconditional apology in his affidavit and also to the Warrant Officer, and further the fact that to some extent the Warrant Officer had exceeded his powers/authority while searching the detenu, we are of the opinion that let the unconditional apology tendered by respondent No.6 be accepted and the proceedings be dropped. Ordered accordingly. Rule is discharged. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE August 03, 2011 ( A. N. JINDAL ) vkg JUDGE