DALJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel.

(2.) ON 30.5.1996, ASI Havel Singh of Police Station City Muktsar presented a calendra before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Muktsar, alleging that Daljeet Singh, the petitioner herein, along with Chander Bhan, Raj Rani and Mayawanti were found in a car bearing registration No. PUU 7888 on the Kacha Thande Wala Road where the police party was on patrol duty. According to the calendra, Chander Bhan was sitting in the driving seat while Raj Rani was sitting on the right side of the back seat and Mayawanti was sitting on the left side, whereas Daljeet Singh, petitioner, was sitting in between them and was making a fun with these women, though he was found to have been afflicted with paralysis. It has also been mentioned that when the police party questioned them, they gave fictitious name. Since these persons were sitting in a car at about 7.00 p.m. to have good time and had given fictitious names, they were taken into custody on the allegation that they had committed an offence under Sections 41(1) and 109, Cr.P.C. On the basis of this calendra, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Muktsar issued a notice under Section 111, Cr.P.C., to the petitioner herein and others vide Annexure P2 dated 31.5.1996. In that notice it has been stated as follows :-

(3.) I have heard the counsel for both the sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the calendra there is no mention that they were about to commit a cognizable offence though in the show cause notice (Annexure P2) it has been vaguely stated that the petitioner was about to prepare himself for indecent activities and tried to commit breach of peace. He further contends that only in the reply it has been stated that the petitioner was about to commit a cognizable offence i.e. to have a good time with the ladies which should be inferred from the fact that he was in the company of ladies during the night in a car.