VIKAS SHARMA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. P. C has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer that this Court should issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from declaring or treating the petitioner as "bad character" of the area in the jurisdiction of Police Station Keshav Puram and not to interfere in the life of the petitioner and also for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order, if any, passed by the respondent declaring the petitioner as bad character. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was involved in bailable offences as per the table given below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1790_ILRDLH16_2007Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) IT is further stated that after 2000, the petitioner was not involved in any of the offences. However, the police officials of Police Station Keshav puram did not want the petitioner to live peacefully and when he was not involved in any offence, the police registered a Kalandra under Section 107, 151 Cr. P. C on 22. 7. 2004, under Section 110 Cr. P. C on 7. 9. 04 and a kalandara under Section 110 Cr. P. C on 23. 11. 04 and in all these three Kalandras there was no public person as a complainant and Head Constable Umed Singh was shown as a complainant and the petitioner was arrested wrongly in these three Kalandras and kept in detention every time for two days. The petitioner had approached this court for this attitude of the police.

(3.) I have gone through the Kandandras lodged on the complaint of Head constable Umed Singh. A perusal of Kalandaras would show that though both the kalandras were lodged on two different dates, the two complaints are in the same language word by word. It only shows that the complaints were false complaints being lodged against the petitioner just to harass him and Head Constable Umed singh seems to have special love and affection towards the petitioner and wanted to keep him in custody of Police Station or in jail. The attitude of Head constable Umed Singh and Police Station Keshav Puram seems to be callous towards the personal liberty of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner is not involved in any IPC offence after 2002. I consider that instead of helping a man to live a normal life after he has given up the criminal life, police is trying to force him to live a life of a criminal by throwing upon him false complaints and kalandras and making one of head constables as complainant.