BALESHWAR PRASHAD Vs. COMMISSIONER POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order of the respondent No. 1 SHO,PS Delhi Cantt, for opening of the history sheet of the petitioner and entering his name in the Surveillance Register and confirmed by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District. He also seeks the issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to remove the entry from the Police Surveillance Register and to close the history sheet opened for him.

(2.) THE circumstances as disclosed in the petition and relevant for the consideration of the points raised, in brief are that the petitioner is a law abiding agriculturist. It is his case that the police officers of the Police Station Delhi Cantt. used to make unreasonable demands of money from him and for that purpose they started making calls at his house at odd hours. After sometime, the petitioner refused to comply these demands and on that score, he incurred the wrath of the police officers. Narrating incident, he alleged that on 21.2.1995, at about 10 P.M. while the petitioner and the other male family members were attending the marriage of the daughter of their close relation in the nearby locality, two constables namely Dharam Pal and Rajinder Singh duly armed with rifles and under the influence of liquor came to his house and started knocking at the door violently. The ladies in the house informed the constables that the petitioner and his male family members were away to the marriage and that they should come later. On this the two constable started manhandling the ladies who in turn raised hue and cry which attracted the attention of the person in the neighbourhood. On being informed that the two constables are camping in the house, the petitioner his father Shri Ram Lal, brother Dilbagh Singh and his cousin brother Padam Singh rushed to the house. On finding that the two constables under the influence of liquor have trespassed in the house, the petitioner immediately hang up the Police Control Room to seek police help. In the meantime Constable Rajinder Singh managed to escape from the spot. Constable Dharam Pal was not allowed to leave the house till the arrival of control room police. Before that few of the police officers from Police Station Delhi Cantt. came to the spot and started dragging the petitioner and his other family members. In the melee the father of the petitioner was deprived of a sum of Rs. 5000/ - which he was carrying for giving to the bride, at the marriage of the daughter of their relation. The police officers then started searching the almirahs and boxes laying in the house and succeeded in taking out a cash of Rs. 2000/ -. They also took into possession the licensed revolver belonging to the brother of the petitioner. When their attempt to forcibly kidnap the petitioner and his brother Dilbagh Singh failed, Head Constable Amar Pal Singh fired two shots from the revolver, and warned the petitioner and his relations that in case they do not surrender, they will be shown killed in an encounter with the police. In this way all of them were removed to the Police Station and later on involved in a false case under Section 186/353/332/342/307/34 I.P.C.

(3.) THE petitioner has further alleged that his thumb impression and foot impressions were taken by the Police on 22 -2 -1985 with a view to open the history sheet. Against' this illegal action the petitioner through his counsel served a registered notice on the respondent No. 1 SHO asking him to furnish the material on the basis of which he has ordered the opening of the history sheet of the petitioner, to which, no reply has been received till the filing of the petition. Thereafter the police officers started pressurizing the petitioner and his family members to withdraw the complaint. In order to achieve the object they started causing harasment by midnight calls at his house and making illegal demands of money without any rhyme or reason. In. order to avoid his future false implication, the petitioner stopped living in his house. The action of the police officer in opening the history sheet of the petitioner is not only against law, but their action is also violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence the petition.