AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMARJIT Singh, Proprietor of Bharat Hotel and Restaurant, Opposite Railway Station, Railway Link Road, Amritsar, has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for registration of a case against respondents No. 4 and 5 and for handing over the investigation to the CBI. It was further prayed that adequate compensation be given to the petitioner for his illegal detention and torture and Rs. 2.5 lacs be got refunded to him.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he belongs to a respectable family. His father offered his services to the nation during the Chinese war in the year 1962 and his father also received a letter of thanks from the President of India vide letter dated 16.11.1962. The petitioner is doing currency and hotel business for the last 16 years at Amritsar and had been issued a valid licence to do the same as per law. Respondent No. 4 at the time of the filing of the petition was posted at Amritsar as Inspector, Incharge Anti Smuggling Staff. Although he was posted to check the smuggling in the area, but he had adopted a novel method to harass a common man and extort money from them in order to fill his own pocket. The petitioner and his staff members were picked up by the Police party led by respondent No. 4 on 10.3.1995. They were brutally tortured for one week. A message was then sent to the family members of the petitioner that in case they want to save the life of the petitioner, they should part with heavy amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs. It was also represented to the family of the petitioner that the petitioner and the car which was taken on 10.3.1995 would be released on payment of Rs. 2.5 lacs. Gurcharan Singh, father-in-law of the petitioner was called in the Police Station by respondent No. 4 to pay the amount in case he want that his son-in-law be released. Gurcharan Singh was left with no other alternative. He collected the amount from his close relations and paid the same to respondent No. 4 who accordingly released the petitioner along with his staff members and the car. After his release, the petitioner who is also the president of Market Union, made it public that a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs were taken by respondent No. 4 for his release. Within a few days, the matter was known to every body. When respondent No. 4 came to know that the petitioner was telling about Rs. 2.5 lacs to every body, he called the petitioner to his office and gave him a receipt issued by respondent No. 7, wherein it was stated that Rs. 2.5 lacs had been paid as donation to Police DAV Public School by Gurcharan Singh, father-in-law of the petitioner. This receipt has been allegedly issued on 16.3.1996. The petitioner was warned against telling anybody about Rs. 2.5 lacs and his illegal detention. According to the petitioner no criminal case was registered against him. However, he was threatened that his life would be made miserable for telling people about Rs. 2.5 lacs and about his illegal detention and torture. After some days, constable named Kanwaljit Singh, respondent No. 5 who was posted at the office of the petitioner used to stop every customer who used to enter into the petitioner's shop and that respondent No. 5 used to enquire about the antecedents of customer. Left with no alternative with the petitioner, he filed a complaint dated 14.9.1996 to the Director General of Police, Punjab, Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar and SSP, Amritsar reporting the entire matter. The matter was investigated by S.P., Headquarter. After the said enquiry was completed, the DSP, Amritsar started summoning the petitioner every day. The petitioner was called in the office of DSP every morning, and he was allowed to return to his place of work in the evening. Another enquiry was pending against the petitioner. This continued for about 10 days. Thereafter, the petitioner left his house and business in Amritsar. Inspite of the repeated complaints made by the petitioner, no case was registered against respondent No. 4 and 5. The money which was paid to respondent No. 4 has not been returned to the petitioner or to Gurcharan Singh. The act on the part of respondent No. 4 constitutes a cognizable offence and it was the duty of the police to register a criminal case against respondent No. 4. The police has failed to discharge its statutory duty; hence the case should be got registered against the guilty persons and the investigation be handed over to the CBI.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by respondents No. 4 and 5 it has been stated that the petitioner was never called by respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 had no concern or connection with the alleged amount as the same was given by Gurcharan Singh as donation to DAV Public School against a valid receipt and respondent No. 4 did not receive this amount for his own benefit. According to this respondent No. 4, the hotel of the petitioner was, in fact, an adda of smugglers and no customer had been visiting the hotel in order to get food. This hotel is invariably used and visited by the smugglers.