Gurmit Singh vs S.I.Yog Raj Sharma

R.L. Anand, J.

By this order, I dispose of Crl. WP 809 of 1998 (Gurmit Singh v. S.I. Yog Raj) and Crl. Misc. No. 24788M of 1998 (Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab and others), as in the opinion of this court, both the petitions can be disposed of by one order.

Gurmit Singh filed Crl. WP 809 of 1998 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions of this court in the nature of habeas for the release of Bikkar Singh son of Joginder Singh, who according to the petitioner was in the illegal custody of SHO, Police Station, Guru Harsahai. Warrant Officer was appointed vide orders dated 17.6.1998. Gian Singh, Warrant Officer, raided the said police station on 18.6.1998 at 11.45 a.m. and the report of the Warrant Officer was that he found the alleged detenu Bikkar Singh standing in the barracks of the said Police Station and the alleged detenu was identified by his brother Jaspal Singh. The Warrant Officer further stated that he entered the reporting room and took into possession the Roznamcha but no case whatsoever was found registered against the alleged him. After recording an entry regarding his arrival, he returned, Roznamcha was returned to the M.H.C. on duty. Finally, Bikkar Singh was got released by the Warrant Officer in pursuance of the directions of this court.

In the second Crl. Misc., the petitioner has prayed for the registration of a criminal case against the SHO Yog Raj and also for the awarding of the compensation for the alleged illegal detention of Bikkar Singh.

In the reply, which has been filed by the State to the Crl. Misc., a particular stand has been taken that "The presence of alleged detenu Bikkar Singh in the premises of police station Guru Harsahai on 18.6.1998 appears to be a part of a sinister design to harm the reputation and that the Warrant Officer has made no entry or any report in the roznamcha/daily diary maintained in the police station Guru Harsahai on 18.8.1998 when the Warrant Officer raided the premises of the police station Guru Harsahai and allegedly found detenu Bikkar Singh to be present in the police station Guru Harsahai."

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the report of the Warrant Officer, who found Bikkar Singh in the police barracks, a prima facie offence has been committed u/s 342, IPC by the police and for the illegal detention, the petitioner or Bikkar Singh should be awarded compensation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as 1997(1) RCR 372 and 1994(1) RCR 18 and submitted that the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down a clear dictum that the High Court is not powerless to award compensation and to take further action in case a citizen is found in the illegal custody of the police.

On the contrary, the contention of the State is that the Warrant Officer has not made any entry in the Roznamcha and that Bikkar Singh had not been found in the custody of the police. His mere presence in the police station does not indicate that he was in the illegal custody of the police. Moreover, the contention of the State is that let the petitioner or the detenu may prove his allegation in the competent court of jurisdiction either in the shape of filing a complaint or by filing a civil suit in order to claim the compensation.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties and in view of the stand taken up by the State, I am of the opinion that the High Court should not order for the registration of the case against the alleged guilty persons because this matter requires, prima facie, adjudication on merits. In these circumstances, I relegate the petitioner to file a criminal complaint in the competent court of jurisdiction or he may file a civil suit in the court of law for claiming compensation.

With the above observations, both the matters stand disposed of.