SARUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , Sarup Singh, has impugned the order dated February 3, 2005, passed by Punjab State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'). A copy of the aforesaid order has been appended as Annexure P-10 with the present petition. On July 24, 2000, Jaimal Singh, respondent No. 2, who was President of Municipal Council, Sultanpur Lodhi filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against petitioner, Sarup Singh as well as D.S.P. Ravi Charan Singh Brar and H.S. Tulli, the then Tehsildar, Sultanpur Lodhi. It has been stated that the aforesaid complainant has been harassed by the police and that his gunman had been withdrawn. It was further claimed that he was receiving threats to his life and that of his family members and even on representation made by him, no action has been taken by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala. The State Commission vide order dated August 9, 2000 took cognizance of the complaint and a report was called. Report dated October 12, 2000 was submitted by the Inspector General of Police (Litigation), Punjab and it was reported that the allegations levelled by respondent No. 2, Jaimal Singh, were false and that the present petitioner, Sarup Singh (S.H.O.), and DSP Ravi Charan Singh Brar were not involved, in any manner, and were honest officers. Objections were raised by the complainant against the said report. On the basis of the said objections, the State Commission directed an enquiry to be conducted by the Commission itself. The complainant and some witnesses filed affidavits before the State Commission. On the receipt of the aforesaid affidavits, petitioner, Sarup Singh, along with DSP Ravi Charan Singh Brar and the Tehsildar H.S. Tulli were summoned.

(2.) THE petitioner along with the aforesaid persons appeared before the State Commission and filed their replies. Various allegations levelled by the complainant were contested. It was also brought to the notice of the State Commission that in the earlier proceedings taken under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both the parties were summoned by the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate and were subsequently discharged on December 13, 2000, after both the parties gave a statement that there was no apprehension of breach of peace between the parties. On consideration of the material available before the State Commission, the reply filed by Ravi Charan Singh Brar was accepted and notice given to him was discharged. However, with regard to SI Sarup Singh (present petitioner), it was observed by the State Commission that since Sarup Singh did not file any reply to show cause notice and had merely adopted the reply of Ravi Charan Singh Brar, therefore, it could be taken that Sarup Singh had not produced any relevant evidence to rebut the allegations levelled against him. Consequently, the following directions (nomenclatured as "recommendations") were issued by the State Commission vide order dated February 3, 2005 :

(3.) WHILE dealing with a bunch of Civil Writ Petitions being Civil Writ Petition No. 18237 of 2003 (Jatt Ram v. Punjab State Human Rights Commission and others), 2005(3) RCR(Crl.) 716 (P&H) : 2005(3) RCR(Civil) 315 (P&H) : and other connected cases through a separate judgment of even date, we have dilated upon the various powers of the State Commission to pass interim orders. We have held that the State Commission has to adopt the procedure envisaged under Section 17(i) of the Act before proceeding any further in the matter and taking cognizance of the complaint. We have also held that the State Commission has no power to pass any interim orders.