SHARAN DASS CHAWLA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed on 13th May,1994 seeking the release of Charan Dass Chawla who was allegedly kept in police custody at the police station Vikaspuri, New Delhi. We appointed an Advocate to visit the police station and submit a report. He has accordingly visited and submitted a report in great detail as to how he had to inspect various rooms in the police station and other places and also mentioned as to how he had to approach several police officers in connection with the alleged wrongful detention of the above said person. The Advocate concerned was not able to get any more information and therefore he submitted the report dated 16th May,1994. The case was called on that date. Petitioner's counsel represented on that. day that the petitioner had returned home. So far as respondents are concerned, they denied that the said Chawla was ever detained. However in as much as such cases have become very frequent, we decided to lay down certain general guidelines as done by he Andhra Pradesh High Court in M. Sudhakar vs. Sub-Inspector of Police 1986(1) AP Law Journal 235 and the Kerala High Court in Poovan v. S.I. of ' Police, Adoor 1993(1) KLT 454.. '

(2.) It has become common experience in High Courts that whenever a Habeas Corpus petition is filed, in cases of unlawful detention the High Court orders notice and after a day or two, a counter is filed by the police authorities stating that the person was not detained on the date alleged but was detained on a later date(probably on the date of the filing of the 83 writ petition) or that the said person was produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of detention and the Magistrate had remanded the person to judicial custody. Sometimes,it also happens that by the time of the next hearing, the person allegedly kept under detention would return home as in the present case before us. When such counter-affidavits are filed,the High Court dispose of the writ petitions saying that no further orders are necessary. Of course, in some cases, the Court would order an inquiry by a subordinate court for deciding whether the person was detained or not.

(3.) It seems to us that if the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code, is immediately resorted to by the relative of the person under detention, much of this type of litigation-can be avoided. In our view, it is not as if the writ of habeas corpus is the only remedy in such situations.