MALKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MALKHAN Singh, the present petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions of this Court vis-a-vis respondents No. 1 to 3 for the registration of the case against respondents No. 4 to 8 on the basis of the complaint filed by him alleging that respondents No. 4 to 8 had wrongly confined him in the Police Station w.e.f. 2.10.1996 to 9.10.1996 and in spite of the commission of cognizable offence by respondents No. 4 to 8, respondents No. 1 to 3 had refused to act in the matter by not registering a case against respondents No. 4 to 8. The allegations of the petitioner are that on 2.10.1996 when police force in two police gypsies visited the house of the petitioner in the morning. The police was headed by Shri Sant Lal, respondent No. 4 as mentioned in para No. 1 of the petition and that the police started beating the petitioner with fist blows and asked him as to why he was indulging in the trade of illicit liquor. The petitioner was directed to accompany the police as it wanted to interrogate him in that regard. On 3.10.1996 father of the petitioner went to the SHO for the release of his son along with Anil Kumar and Gurmit Singh. SHO Sheesh Pal demanded rupees one lakh for releasing the petitioner from the custody. On 8.10.1996 father of the petitioner filed a criminal writ petition No. 1354 of 1996 in the High Court for the release of the petitioner. Warrant Officer was appointed who conducted the raid on 4.10.1996 at about 6.30 a.m. and at his instance the petitioner was released from illegal custody. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the police for registration of a case against respondents No. 4 to 8. He also approached respondent Nos 2 and 3 for this purpose and in spite of the representation made by him no action was taken.

(2.) THE grouse of the petitioner in nutshell is that since cognizable offence has been committed by respondents No. 4 to 8, therefore, it is the statutory duty of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to comply with the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. and to register the case as held in 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383 : AIR 1992 Supreme Court, 604 The State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others.

(3.) IN these circumstances prima facie an offence has been made out under Section 342 IPC. Since the State has failed to discharge its statutory duty in view of the settled law as laid down in 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383 : AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 (supra), directions are given to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to register a case against respondents Nos. 4 to 8 under the above provisions of law. Directions are further given to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak to hand over the investigation of this case to S.P. (Crimes) who shall submit police report within six months from the receipt of the copy of this order under the signatures of Superintendent of Police of the District. Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent of Police, Rohtak. for compliance. Petition is allowed.