IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CACP No.9 of 2006(O&M) Date of decision: 28.10.2009 Manjeet Singh & another. -----Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- None for the appellants. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl.A.G., Punjab. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing the appellants to pay Rs.50,000/- each and out the total sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, the amount is to be shared by respondent No.2 and his son. 2. Respondent No.2 filed Contempt Petition, alleging violation of safeguards in the matter of arrest incorporated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 1997 (1) SCC 416. Case of the respondent No.2 is that his son Mohit Kumar was married to Jasbir Kaur on 3.7.2002. Jasbir Kaur and one Paramjit Singh had an affair, which continued even after her marriage to Mohit Kumar and on objection of son of respondent No.2, Jasbir Kaur left the matrimonial home. At her instance, Paramjit Singh trespassed into the house of respondent CACP No.9 of 2006 No.2 and assaulted his wife and son, which led to filing of FIR No.26 dated 18.1.2003 at Police Station City Abohar. FIR was cancelled on account of interference of appellant No.2 Surinder Singh, at the instance of Paramjit Singh. However, later on representation of respondent No.2, challan was filed and trial was pending. Thereafter, appellant ASI Surinder Singh used his position to bring about a compromise. With the help of appellant ASI Manjeet Singh, false FIR was registered on 27.8.2004 being FIR No.172, implicating Mohit Kumar in NDPS case and on that ground, Mohit Kumar was arrested on 26.8.2004 without following due procedure. Respondent No.2 was not allowed to meet his son and the appellants pressurized respondent No.2 to enter into a compromise. It was only after respondent No.2 entered into a compromise that he was permitted to meet his son. His son had been beaten in custody and was later produced before the Area Magistrate on 28.8.2004. On medical examination, carried out under the directions of the Court, injuries were found and inquiry was conducted and report dated 14.1.2005 was submitted to the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. Finding substance in the complaint of respondent No.2, in the manner noticed in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge, the FIR lodged against the son of respondent No.2 was cancelled. Thereafter, Contempt Petition was filed in this Court against the appellants, on above facts. 2 CACP No.9 of 2006 3. On 12.4.2005, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur was directed to conduct an inquiry and submit a report. Accordingly, report dated 12.12.2005 was submitted to this Court against the appellants and in favour of respondent No.2. 4. After considering the said report and all other material and referring to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (paras 35 and 54) D.K. Basu (supra), the learned Single Judge recorded the following conclusions:- (i) the petitioner's son (Mohit kumar) was falsely implicated in the case FIR No.172 dated 27.8.2004, P.S. City Abohar under the NDPS Act; the fact that subsequently a cancellation report was filed and accepted by the court of competent jurisdiction confirms it; (ii)Mohit Kumar was actually picked up by the police team headed by ASI Manjit Singh on 26.8.2004 at about 7 p.m. which is clearly inferrable from the fact that his father (the petitioner) sent fax messages to the higher police authorities to this effect on that very day at about 11 p.m.; the representations sent by him on 27.8.2004 also substantiate this allegation; (iii) Mohit Kumar was kept in illegal custody and in order to give legitimacy to his act of vindictive abuse of power, ASI Manjit Singh slapped a false and concocted case upon him on the next day, i.e. 27.8.2004 when FIR No.172 was registered under the NDPS Act at 10.15 a.m.; 3 CACP No.9 of 2006 (iv) while in custody, Mohit Kumar was kept handcuffed without obtaining any permission of the court. From the facts and record, said Mohit Kumar does not appear to be such a dreaded criminal that his handcuffing could be otherwise justified; (v)Mohit Kumar, while in custody of the police team led by ASI Manjit Singh, was subjected to third degree methods of physical torture which resulted into multiple injuries on his person, as detected by the doctor during medical examination, which, it appears, was deliberately delayed and got conducted on 29.8.2004 only; (vi) the allegation of the petitioner that when he met Mohit Kumar while in police custody, he was screaming with pain and/or blood was oozing out of his urine, inspires confidence and does not appear to be an exaggerated version; (vii) an officer of the rank of Additional I.G., Crime has categorically concluded that ASI Manjit Singh is a dear friend of ASI Surinder Singh and both of them have worked together. There is nothing on record to disbelieve this finding of fact; (viii) undoubtedly, ASI Surinder Singh had an axe to grind against the petitioner and his family; in the FIR No.26 dated 18.1.2003 under section 323/427/452/506/148/149 IPC in the Police Station City Abohar, son of ASI Surinder Singh, namely, Paramjit Singh @ Pamma, as well as one or two brothers of ASI Surinder Singh are named as accused; the FIR has been got registered on the statement of wife of the petitioner in which it is alleged 4 CACP No.9 of 2006 that the son of ASI Surinder Singh and his associates criminally trespassed upon the petitioner's house and assaulted his wife and son, namely, Mohit Kumar; (ix) if the allegations are true, Jasbir Kaur @ Goldy, with whom the petitioner's son got married, had illicit relations with Paramjit Singh @ Pamma, son of ASI Surinder Singh, and both of them were caught red- handed in a compromising position by Mohit kumar in their house; (x) ASI Surinder Singh has been using all kinds of pressure tactics upon the petitioner and his family for a compromise in the case FIR No.26 dated 18.1.2003 under section 323/427/452/506/148/149 IPC in the Police Station City Abohar; and (xi) thus, there was a clear motive behind implication of petitioner's son, Mohit Kumar, in a false case under the NDPS Act so that the same could be used for the purpose of arm-twisting against the petitioner and his family.” Accordingly, order directing payment of costs, as above, was passed. 5. Inspite of repeated calls, none appears for the appellants. We have perused the record. 6. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that they were acting in discharge of their official duties and had not violated the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu (supra). Findings in the inquiry report submitted by the Additional Inspector General (Crime) to the Human Rights 5 CACP No.9 of 2006 Commission as well as the Inquiry Report dated 12.12.2005 submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, could not be acted upon, as son of respondent No.2 was a hard-core criminal, against whom FIR No.118 dated 5.5.2008 under Sections 452, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and FIR No.228 dated 16.8.2002 under Sections 380 IPC were pending. 6. We are unable to accept the submissions. Mere denial by the appellants is not enough to reject the inquiry reports, which have been examined threadbare by the learned Single Judge. The conclusions reached by learned Single Judge cannot be held to be without any evidence or material. Having regard to sufficient material on record, the action of torture of son of respondent No.2 by the appellants for extraneous considerations is fully borne out. 7. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 28, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 6