S KULDIP SINGH Vs. SUPDT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who are brothers have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to remove the names of the petitioners from Register No. 10, Police Act, on the following allegations.

(2.) THE father of the petitioners Dr. Faqir Singh was a retired Surgeon from Government service. The petitioners are joint and are also living together whereas their three other brothers are separate from them. S. Harcharanjit Singh elder brother of the petitioners is educated upto B. A. standard and is a member of the Gram Panchayat as also of Block Samiti. Another brother of theirs S. Narinjdarpal Singh is a Hawaldar in the Indian Army. The petitioners and their brothers own about 70 acres of land and another area of about 40 acres is mortgaged with them with possession. The two petitioners were liquor licensees up to 31-3-1962, having held such licences for nearly six years. Last year they paid a sum of Rs. 35,000/-by way of licence fee. In 1057-58 they held three liquor licences at three different places. From 1-4-1962, the petitioners have started transport business, having given up the liquor shop. Now, they own two motor trucks which are being plied as public carriers. They own a jeep car for their own use. Kuldip Singh petitioner also claims to be a gun-licensee for the last about seven years. One of the petitioners' cousin brothers by name S. Gurcharan Singh is a Colonel in the Indian Army and their brother-in-law S, Surjan Singh a Captain. S. Harnam Singh, a paternal uncle of theirs, is a retired Divisional Personnel Officer in the Indian Railways and his son S. Raghbir Singh is in the Indian Administrative Service. The petitioners thus claim to belong to a fairly respectable family.

(3.) S. Shamsher Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station village Khamanon, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, respondent No. 2, was transferred to the said police station in 1960. At that time, the petitioners were running a shop of licensed liquor in village Sanghol within the jurisdiction of Khamanon Police Station. The Station House Officer used to send for liquor off and on from the petitioners' shop through various messengers without paying for the same. The petitioners for about 3 or 4 months did4 not ask for the price of the liquor supplied to the Station House Officer but thereafter realising that he had no intention of paying the price, the petitioners declined to supply the same to him. This naturally made respondent No. 2 inimical towards, the petitioners. On 5-3-1961, respondent No. 2 raided the petitioners' house as also those of the petitioners' brothers including that of S. Harcharanjit Singh who is the petitioner's elder brother. Respondent No. 2 did so acting on the complaint of one Ram Murti who is against the petitioners and belongs to the opposite faction. But nothing incriminating was found during the search. S. Harcharanjit Singh thereupon served a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, on S. Shamsher Singh, respondent No, 2, and the Punjab Government for damages to the tune of Rs. 5,000. /.-on account of mala fide action of the former. This was done on 28-31961. Respondent No. 2 being the Station House Officer thereafter sent for Tarlochan Singh, petitioner on 3-4-1961 and threatened him with grave consequences for the service of the notice by his brother. Kuldip Singh petitioner thereupon sent an application to the Chief Minister, Punjab on 6-4-1961 complaining against the conduct of respondent No. 2. An attempt was also made by respondent No. 2 in 1961 ' to involve the petitioners' brother S. Harcbaranjit Singh in a case under the Excise Act for the alleged recovery of crushed poppy heads from a khola near his house. Respondent No. 2 tried to implicate the petitioners' brother but it so happened that the Inspector of Police himself came to the spot for verifying the investigation and in the result he directed cancellation of the case because of want of material. Respondent No. 2 then got a complaint under Section 506, Indian Penal Code, lodged against the petitioners by Hardowari Lal son of the aforesaid Ram Murti and also recommended cancellation of Kuldip Singh's gun-licence which was actually suspended on 19-4-1962. On a representation having been made by the petitioner to the Additional District Magistrate, however, the gun-licence was restored on 3-71961. On 7-7-1962, respondent No. 2 again managed recovery of some crushed poppy heads from the same khola near the petitioner's house, as mentioned above, and openly declared that if he could get about two witnesses he would implicate the petitioners in the matter. According to the writ petition, up to September, 1962, when this writ petition was presented in this Court no witness had come forward to depose against the petitioners. Kuldip Singh, it is averred, sent another application to the Chief Minister complaining about Shamsher Singh's action. In July or August, 1961, Kesar Singh, Chand Singh, Sarwan Singh and other committed lurking house trespass by night in the petitioners' liquor shop in respect of which a case was got registered under Sections 458-459, Indian Penal Code. Kuldip Singh petitioner had also been inflicted incised wounds by the said accused persons as a result of which he was admitted in a hospital. In spite of the seriousness of the offence respondent No. 2 did not care to complete the investigation and put in the challan for nearly eight or nine months, with the result that the material witnesses were won over by the accused persons and the chances of success became remote. Actuated by malice, as would be obvious from the details given above, respondent No. 2 so proceeds the writ petition, has now placed the petitioners in the list of bad characters maintained under Section 10 of the Police Act and their history-sheets have been opened in the police station. Respondent No. 2 has, as a result, directed the Lambardars and Chowkidars of village Sanghol to watch the petitioners' movements and call them out every night, with the result that their movements are watched and they are constantly shadowed by the police. This, according to the petitioners' allegation, has been done in order to harass the petitioners. A representation has also been sent by respectable people of the village and of surrounding villages to the Chief Minister and the Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana on 26-81962 bringing to the notice the status and respectable position of the petitioners in the society and the conduct of respondent No. 2, but so far no relief has been given to them.