VIVEK CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Vivek Chand Sharma has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to continue the security arrangements provided to him and his family in terms of the Order passed by this Court on 13.8.1996 even after his retirement on 20.2.1997. Notice of this application was given to the Union of India, the State of Haryana and the Chandigarh Administration. They have also filed replies each expressing their difficulties in providing security to the petitioner as also questioning the need for providing security to the petitioner after his retirement. I have heard counsel for all the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Vice Chancellor and was entitled to continue as such till 22.2.1997. Admittedly on 13.5.1996, the residence and Camp Office of the petitioner was attacked by certain persons and petitioner and his son were injured in that incident apart from others. Once again on 10.8.1986, there was an attack in the morning. The petitioner and his son were taken by the Deputy Commissioner and SSP, Rohtak to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. In the presence of the Deputy Commissioner, the SSP and other police officials and a police force, the petitioner and his son were once again attacked in the Causalty Ward of the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. With reference to all these incidents, three separate FIRs have been registered. One FIR has also been registered against the petitioner on the complaint by an individual on the ground that he was shot at by the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that since he was appointed by the previous regime, the present Administration of Haryana did not want him to continue as the Vice Chancellor and, therefore, a reign of terror was unleashed to force him to resign. The petitioner approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. No. 14354-M of 1996 for a direction to hand over the investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation and that request has been allowed today by means of a separate order. On 13.8.1996, this Court directed that security should be provided by the CRPF at the expense of the State of Haryana. The CRPF wanted a modification of this order. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner had to retire and this Court on 21.2.1997 after hearing the parties, ordered that a contingent of 30 persons was not required and that the security be provided to the petitioner by 8 persons. But, the contention of the CRPF is that the CRPF functions in terms of battalions and companies and could not be split into sections and platoons and posted to far flung places as it would lead to management hazards, administrative and organisational inconveniences as well as the lack of command. On these grounds and on the ground that providing security to an individual is the responsibility of the State and, therefore, the State of Haryana should provide security to the petitioner based upon the need, the Union of India also contends that simply because the petitioner has lost faith and confidence in the Haryana Police, it does not mean that the CRPF should be directed to provide security to him. The State of Haryana, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner has retired and, therefore, there is no need for any security and that if all persons start asking for provision of security, it will be a great problem for the State. The State of Haryana also contends that Rakesh Dabbas who was attacked by the petitioner, also applied for protection and the same was rejected. The Chandigarh Administration, on the other hand, pleads that the petitioner has now settled at Jhajjar after his retirement which is more than 270 kilometres from Chandigarh and, therefore, it is impossible for it to provide protection to the petitioner from its sources.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of all the parties. The fact that the petitioner and his family was attacked on 13.5.1996 and then twice on 10.8.1996 violently, shows the need for protection. Even the Deputy Commissioner has written to the S.P. that the petitioner should be given protection and that the security given to him should be tightened in view of the violent attack on the petitioner and his son and the family members. Of course, the petitioner has now retired and has settled at Jhajjar which is about 35 kilometres from Rohtak where he was performing duties as the Vice Chancellor. The circumstances under which the petitioner and his son were attacked in the presence of the police officials and the police force as also the Deputy Commissioner, certainly do not permit the provision of security to the petitioner by the Haryana Police. Naturally the Chandigarh Administration will find it difficult to provide security to the petitioner since the petitioner has settled at Jhajjar which is at a distance of 270 kilometres from Chandigarh. The CRPF has its Group Centre at Jharoda Kalan, which is 60 kilometres from Rohtak and has about 5 battalions. Of course, the CRPF could be made use of for other better purposes than the protection of individuals, but in the circumstances of the case, and after exploring all possibilities, I am left with no alternative at present except to direct that the CRPF should continue to give protection to the petitioner. In spite of my efforts to find out a way to provide protection to the petitioner in a manner which will be not only satisfactory to all the parties, but also cause least management and administrative problems, no other alternative could be found. Therefore, I direct that the CRPF should continue to provide security to the petitioner, his wife, son and daughter even though the petitioner has retired. But the need for keeping a patloon of 30 persons as security for the petitioner and his family is no more required. It is sufficient that three persons are provided as security for the petitioner and his wife put together, and two men for the son and two for his daughter who are stated to be either working or studying.