LAWS(P&H)-1999-10-150

NAND KISHORE KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On October 29, 1999
NAND KISHORE KAPOOR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the alleged detenu Nand Kishore Kapoor said to have been detained by the respondents who are Police officials.

(2.) BY an order dated 6.3.1994 a Warrant Officer was appointed. He accordingly visited the Police Station, C.I.A. Staff at 7.05 A.M. on7.3.1994 and he conducted the search in the premises of the Police Station and Nand Kishore was found standing in the verandah of the Police Station who was identified by the person accompanied the Warrant Officer. The S.H.O. told the Warrant Officer that the alleged detenu was neither called to the Police Station nor he was required in any case and the Roznamcha Register also did not disclose anything in regard to the arrest of the detenu Nand Kishore Kapoor, but the report of the Warrant Officer shows that the S.H.O. informed him that the alleged defendants called for inquiry in connection with a complaint and he was no longer required in any case in the CIA Staff. Thereafter, the Warrant Officer allowed Nand Kishore Kapoor to go as he likes and submitted his report.

(3.) IN these proceedings, it is not necessary for me to go into the correctness or otherwise of the Inquiry Report. The very purpose of filing Criminal Writ Petition 126 of 1994 to get the release of Nand Kishore Kapoor has been served since he has been released. According to the Warrant Officer he was found in the verandah of Police Station. Whether he went there before the arrival of the Warrant Officer or whether he was taken into illegal custody is not a question for me to decide in this matter. The criminal writ petition was filed only for the release of Nand Kishore Kapoor and he was allowed to go free from the premises of the CIA Staff. No further orders are, therefore, required to be passed in Cr. W.P. No. 126 of 1994. If Nand Kishore Kapoor was illegally detained, it is for him to take any appropriate action against the persons who are responsible for his illegal custody. This court will not be in a position to decide the disputed questions of fact. It is no doubt true that by an order dated 26.2.1996 this court directed an inquiry to be held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad and in pursuance of this order, the inquiry report has been submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate wherein he found that Nand Kishore Kapoor has got his own remedy to pursue. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that action should be taken against the respondents for filing false affidavits and forged documents in support of their version regarding the illegal detention of Nand Kishore Kapoor. According to the petitioner, the Inspector, CIA Staff, Harcharan Singh filed an affidavit on 28.3.1994 wherein he denied the averments made in the petition for want of knowledge and stated that the matter was under inquiry on the complaint of one R.K. Bhatia, the Managing Director of M/s Bony Rubber Co. Private Ltd. and Bony Shoe Company Pvt. Ltd. It was further stated in the affidavit that the true facts were that Nand Kishore Kapoor was asked to visit CIA Staff, Faridabad on 7.3.1994 at 9 A.M. to participate in the enquiry on the complaint Annexure R-1. It was also stated that it appeared that Nand Kishore had already moved the High Court. In order to justify the same, he came to the CIA Staff at 7.30 A.M. accompanied by one Milap Chand, his friend. According to the petitioner, Annexure R-1 which is a complaint filed alongwith an affidavit is forged and fictitious document created only for the purpose of supporting the false affidavit filed by respondent No. 5 namely Harcharan Singh. Whether any complaint was given such as Annexure R-1 is a matter to be decided in appropriate proceedings, but not in this case.