SWAROOP CHAND JAIN Vs. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the action of the District Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur, respondent No. 1, in opening a history sheet of the petitioner and placing him under surveillance. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari is sought. The petitioner also claims that the respondents be restrained from continuing this action against the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is a resident of Chhatarpur and, apart from being a businessman, he lays claim to being a respectable inhabitant of that place by virtue of his holding several elective posts there. According to the petitioner, one Somchand, also of Chhat-tarpwr, has in respect of an incident alleged te have occurred on 8th April, 1970, filed a complaint against respondents Nos, 3 and 5 for having committed alleged offences under Sections 392, 323, 341 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, which complaint is pending in the Court of Magistrate First Class, Chhatarpur and in which the petitioner is cited by the complainant Somchand as a wit-mess for the prosecution. Respondents 1 to 5 are police officers who had been posted at Chbatarpur at the relevant time. Out of them, respondent No. 3 was Station Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Chhatarpur, till September 1970, and has thereafter been transferred to Sagar; and respondent No. 5 was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Kotwali, Chhatarpur, till October 1970, whereafter he has been transferred as Station Officer, Bajna, also in district Chhat-tarpur. The petitioner's case is that the respondent police officers and particularly respondents 2, 3 and 5 entertained an unfounded belief that the petitioner was instrumental in getting the aforesaid criminal complaint iled by Somchand. It is further alleged that in pursuance of such belief they approached the petitioner to persuade Somchand to withdraw the complaint and on account of the petitioner's inability to comply with their demand, respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 5 entered into a conspirary to humiliate the petitioner. Accordingly, some false reports were obtained by the police officers against the petitioner and the impugned action has been taken as a consequence thereof. It is alleged that the action taken by respondent No. 1 in order-ins the opening of a history-sheet of the petitioner and placing him under surveillance is a consequence of such reports of police efficers, particularly of respondents 2 and 4 who made reports in this background.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents a joint return has been filed and the only affidavit in support thereof is filed by Shri Mahesh Dutt Sharma, Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur (respondent No. 1 ). According to the respondents, the petitioner has been involved in satta gambling because of which his activities required a close watch. It is further alleged that the petitioner's activities, though illegal, cannot be checked in any other manner because of the lack of legal evidence against him. On behalf of the respondents it has not been denied that a history-sheet has been opened in respect of the petitioner and that he has been placed under surveillance. Accordingly, the respondents seek to justify the impugned action taken against the petitioner and reliance is placed on the Police Regulations for this purpose.