SADHU RAM Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BHATINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Sadhu Ram, a businessman of Bhatinda, has filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, mandamus or such other appropriate writ or direction etc, for the quashing of an order dated July 25, 1968, whereby the petitioner's history sheet had been started and his name had been entered in Surveillance Register No. 10 under Rule 23.5 of the Punjab Police Rules by the respondents. It was alleged amongst other things that there was no circumstance justifying the opening of the petitioner's History Sheet and the inclusion of his name in the Surveillance Register and that these steps had been taken mala fide and were a gross abuse of their powers by the respondents and that the Police Rules were ultra vires of the Constitution of India as they were an encroachment on the petitioner's fundamental rights. The impugned order was said to have been passed to put pressure on the petitioner to withdraw a complaint filed by him against some police officers of Bhatinda in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda.

(2.) The allegations in the petition are that on June 26, 1968, during the petitioner's temporary absence from Bhatinda, his house was raided at about 8.30 P.M. but Sub-Inspector Uttam Singh, Head Constable Gurcharan Singh and Surjit Sing, and that some female members of the petitioner's family were threatened and beaten and were made to part with a sum of Rs. 500/-. The incident was witnessed by two neighbours Duni Chand and Chiranji Lal and the latter had sent telegrams to the Chief Minister, Punjab, the same night and to some other authorities the next day. The petitioner and also returned to Bhatinda on June 27, 1968 and had filed a complaint under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 384 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code against these police officers in the course of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The complaint had been forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate and the complainant was directed to appear before him on 5-7-1968. The petitioner and his witness Chiranji Lal were, however, arrested by Sub-Inspector Waryam Singh, Station House Officer, Incharge of Kotwali, Bhatinda, on the eve of this hearing while the other witness Duni Chand was arrested from the Court compound early in the morning on the date of hearing. The petitioner's counsel managed to get a date and thereby avoided the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint. The petitioner was produced for remand before a Magistrate on 5-7-1968 and came to know in Court that a false case for theft and criminal trespass had been registered against him and Duni Chand about 3 weeks earlier. They both remained in police custody upto 9-7-1968, when they were released on bail. While they were in police custody they were beaten and threatened to withdraw the complaint against the police officers. The other witness Chiranji Lal had also been kept in police custody and beaten for two days and was let off on 6-7-1968, only after he had been forced to give in writing that the would not support the petitioner in the complaint case and that he had sent the telegrams on June 26/27, 1968 at the instance of some satta gamblers. Chiranji Lal complained in writing about this to respondent No. 1 as soon as he was released on 6-7-1968 and copies of the complaint were sent by him to a number of authorities including the Inspector General of Police and Chief Minister, Punjab. As the arrest of the petitioner and his witness on the eve of the hearing amounted to Contempt of Court, a complaint was also filed by the petitioner in the High Court and was pending before Jindra Lal, J. when this petitioner was instituted. That complaint was Criminal Original No. 114 of 1968 and has been decided on 7-5-1969. Sub-Inspector Waryam Singh, Station House Officer of Kotwali, Bhatinda and Head Constable Gurcharan Singh have been both sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. During the hearing of that case for contempt of Court the petitioner came to know on December 10, 1968, from the statement of Head Constable Ujaggar Singh recorded by the Sessions Judge at Bhatinda, that his History Sheet had been started and his name entered in the Surveillance Register No. 10 on July 25, 1968 (Annexure B). This was one day after the petitioner's complaint for Contempt of Court had been admitted by Jindra Lal, J. The petitioner denied that he was indulging in Satta gambling and the action of the respondents in starting the petitioner's History Sheet and registering him as a shady character was mala fide and gross abuse of their powers under the Police Rules. The simultaneous opening o the petitioner's History Sheet and his registration in the Surveillance Register were said to be against the Rules and to be not justified by the facts and circumstances of the case. The Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda, had been asked to discontinue he petitioner's History Sheet and to strike off his name from th Surveillance Register by a notice served through a counsel but the notice had remained un-acknowledged. Manifest injustice had been done to the petitioner and he had been deprived of his freedom of movement and the right to carry on his trade freely. On these ground sit was prayed that th impugned order of the respondents may be quashed by a writ of certiorari and they may be directed by a writ of mandamus to discontinue the petitioner's History Sheet and to strike off the petitioner's name from the Surveillance Register.

(3.) Head Constable Surjit Singh has filed an affidavit denying the allegations about the raid and criminal trespass in the petitioner's house on 26-6-1968. The complaint filed by the petitioner on 27-6-1968 was described to be false.