MUSA KHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUSA Khan has filed this petition for issuance of a direction to the respondent to delete his name from Register No. 10 maintained by the Police Station Kotwali, Patiala under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short "the 1934 Rules") as also to issue a direction that the action of the Station House Officer of the aforesaid Police Station displaying his name and photograph on the notice board of the Police Station amounts to interference with the life and liberty of the petitioner.

(2.) THE relevant facts pleaded for decision of the petition are that Musa Khan had participated in the National Weightlifting Championships in the year 1989-90 and secured first place in those Junior Inter State Weightlifting Championships and was declared best weightlifter of the Union Territory of Chandigarh (wrongly mentioned as Chandigarh State). He is presently running a business of property dealer at Uday Street, Adalat Bazar, Patiala and is also having contractorship of Cycle Stands in Civil Secretariat, Patiala. He claims that he is paying income tax since 1996-97. According to him, Inspector Varinder Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Patiala had on 21.12.2000 moved an application under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala praying that the petitioner be asked to execute a security bond for good behaviour. This application was dismissed on 20.3.2001. According to the petitioner, the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala indicates that the police was harassing the petitioner in one way or the other. Inspector Varinder Singh was replaced by Inspector Didar Singh, who took charge of Police Station, Sadar, Patiala in January, 2003 and started requiring the petitioner to come to Police Station time and again. The petitioner had apprised him about the outcome of the calendra under Section 107 of the Code on account whereof the Inspector made it his prestige issue to harass and implicate the petitioner. To achieve his purpose, the Inspector evolved a novel idea and put the name and photograph of the petitioner on the notice board of the Police Station Sadar, Patiala indicating that he was habitual offender. When the petitioner came to know of this fact he asked the Inspector to remove his name and the photograph. Inspector Didar Singh had required the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for removing the same. On the basis of these assertions, Musa Khan submits that Inspector Didar Singh is out to harass him for obvious reasons.

(3.) THE representation, which was moved, was rejected by the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala by mentioning a list of 14 cases which had been registered against the petitioner. Musa Khan submits that for the last more five years, he has not been involved in any crime and in all the cases, which have been mentioned in the list, Annexure P-13, he has been acquitted. He also asserts that request of the police to initiate proceedings under Section 110 of the Code had been rejected and, therefore, a case was made out for removal of the name of the petitioner from Register No. 10 and prayed that the requisite directions be issued.