CWP No. 417 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 417 of 2011 (L&M) Date of decision 30.11.2011 Prem Kumar . Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Sr. DAG Pb. for the respondents 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR,J. 1. The instant petition has been registered as a public interest litigation on the basis of telegram addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court by one Prem Kumar @ Pathan. In the telegram allegation of threat and intimidation have been levelled by the petitioner against the police. In the reply filed by the respondent -State of Punjab allegation has been made against the petitioner that he is an international smuggler because there were several FIRs registered against him. It was further alleged that the author of the telegram was asked to execute a bond of good behaviour under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no harassment or intimidation has been caused to him. The details of the four FIRs have been given in the reply. 2. On 25.2.2011, the petitioner was personally present in the Court and upon hearing the deliberations, he submitted that he had a family dispute with his daughter in law and on that account he has been labelled as an international smuggler. The Court was of the view that the matter CWP No. 417 of 2011 2 required to be probed further and therefore appointed Shri Rajiv Atma Ram, learned Senior Counsel as Amicus Curiae. He was required to inter- act with the author of the telegram and ensure that an affidavit containing his version is placed before this Court on the date fixed. 3. Likewise, respondent – State of Punjab was also asked to file affidavit giving details of the FIRs registered against the author of the telegram and the stage of investigation. 4. In the reply filed on 22.4.2011 by Shri Inderbir Singh, IPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central) Amritsar it was revealed that following FIRs were pending including FIR No. 35 dated 14.2.1970: “a)Case FIR No. 7 dated 7.1.2005 u/s 386 IPC PS C Division (Under trial) b)Case FIR No. 6 dated 12.2.2005 u/s 323, 506, 541, 148, 149 IPC PS D Division, Amritsar (Under trial) c)Case FIR No. 173 dated 28.12.2007 u/s 389, 385, 306/34 IPC PS D Division, Amritsar (Under trial) d)Case FIR No. 14.10.2008 u/s 341, 323, 506/34 IPC PS D Division, Amritsar (under trial).” The other allegations against the appellant were controverted. 5. Dr. Rahul IPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central), Amritsar City on behalf of State of Punjab- respondent no.1 has filed similar reply by stating as under: “ a) that in case FIR No.35 dated 14.2.1970, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges by the Court on 5.4.1973; b) that in case FIR No.36 dated 14.2.1970, the petitioner was discharged before the charges could be framed vide order CWP No. 417 of 2011 3 dated 3.6.1971; c) Similarly in case FIR No. 336 dated 19.8.1984, the police has submitted un-traced report on 18.2.1985; d) Likewise, in case FIR No. 11 dated 11.2.1986, un-traced report on 22.5.1986 has been filed; e) There was another FIR No. 67 dated 29.2.1991 registered against the petitioner and other co-accused for smuggling gold. However, un-traced report was filed on 9.1.1998. f) FIR No. 84 dated 17.5.1991 was registered alleging smuggling of gold, silver and ammunition from Pakistan and also for delivering secret information of Indian Army. However, un-traced report was filed on 15.1.1992; g) that in pursuance of order dated 28.5.1991, he was arrested under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. However, he was released on 10.7.1991; h) in case FIR No. 7 dated 7.1.2005 under Section 386 IPC, the petitioner has been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar vide order dated 27.9.2008; i) in case FIR No. 13 dated 12.2.2005, the petitioner was found innocent of the charges.; j) Case FIR No. 6 dated 12.2.2005 is still pending and is fixed for prosecution evidence. h) Case FIR No. 183 dated 28.12.2007 is pending for trial before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar; i)in case FIR No. 104 of 2008 dated 14.10.2008 charges have been framed against the petitioner and the case is pending for CWP No. 417 of 2011 4 trial in the Court of Shri Vineet Kumar Narang, JMIC Amritsar. 7. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 26.4.2011, a different version has been given. It has been stated that the police of Amritsar is making effort to defame the petitioner and there is some family dispute and infact one Dev Parkash is real brother of the petitioner. His other sibling is his sister Sneh Lata who did not have any child. She adopted Monika daughter of the petitioner, as her child in the year 1980. However, petitioner's daughter Monika fell ill and without getting her medically treated brought Monika back to the petitioner and she left her at his house. After Monika got well, the aforesaid Sneh Lata wanted to take her back but the petitioner did not send Monika with Sneh Lata. However, Sneh Lata adopted one Veena d/o Reshma, sister of the petitioner, in the year 1984. In the year 1988 Sneh Lata and her husband Radha Krishan both died. As a consequence, Reshma and her husband brought their daughter Veena back home. It is alleged that Dev Parkash, brother of the petitioner, forged a will of Shri Radha Krishan in his own favour according to which all the assets of Radha Krishan were left to Dev Parkash and Dev Parkash took over the entire property of Radha Krishan and Reshma. The basic reason for lodging of various FIRs is Dev Parkash, real brother of the petitioner. It has been pointed out that perusal of the FIRs would show that in none of them there are allegations pertaining to smuggling or any other activity highlighted which may be prejudicial to the revenue of the State or which may pose threat to the health of the people. 8. On 27.11.2011 an additional affidavit has been filed by Shri Naveen Singla, IPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central), Amritsar CWP No. 417 of 2011 5 on behalf of the State of Punjab- respondent and it has now been stated that SHO Police Station 'D' Division Amritsar has revealed that petitioner Prem Pathan is about 70 years of age and after reviewing the present position, proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. are not to be initiated at this stage. 9. In view of the above, we are of the view that police at Amritsar should not have raided the house of the petitioner and threatened him by registering FIR after FIR defaming him in the society. The petitioner is a senior citizen and if any FIR is pending that would be taken to its logical end. However keeping in view the result of the prosecution in those FIRs which have either resulted into discharge or acquittal, the police of Amritsar would be required to initiate criminal proceedings only after being sure that the allegations are well based and are not founded on malice of his brother Dev Parkash. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rajiv Narain Raina) 30.11.2011 Judge okg