Manjit Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

By this order, I dispose of Crl. Writ Petitions 119 and 175 of 1998, as in the opinion of this court, both the wit petitions can be disposed of by one order.

Ranjit Singh filed a petition No. 119 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that Manjit Singh, his real brother, was in the illegal custody of S.H.O. and Sub Inspector Inderjeet Singh of C.I.A. Staff, Jalandhar. This petition came up for hearing on 30.1.1998 and vide my order of the even date, a Warrant Officer was appointed with the directions to search such premises as may be pointed out by the petitioner in order to locate Manjit Singh.

Shri D.M. Parti, Warrant Officer raided the premises of CIA Staff, Jalandhar and found Manjit Singh. The alleged detenu also reported to the Warrant Officer that he was earlier tortured badly by the CIA Staff. Finally, Munshi Gian Singh, who was present at the time of the visit of the Warrant Officer, released the detenu Manjit Singh in the presence of the Warrant Officer and the detenu was handed over to the petitioner Ranjit Singh.

Vide Crl. W.P. 175 of 1998, which has been filed by Manjit Singh, he has prayed for the grant of compensation and for the registration of a criminal complaint against S.I. Inderjeet Singh and S.I. Tarsem Singh and two other constables whose names are not known to Manjit Singh.

The stand of the State is that one Kuldeep Singh s/o Sukhwinder Singh, r/o Ranjit Nagar, Jalandhar City, gave a complaint to S.S.P., Jalandhar, which was marked to S.I. Inderjeet Singh for verification and for taking legal action on 29.1.1998. On the basis of this complaint, a requisition was sent to Ranjit Singh and Manjit Singh to appear in the CIA Staff on 30.1.1998 at 4.00 PM. Resultantly, Manjit Singh appeared in the CIA Staff in pursuance of the directions of the police as he was wanted in connection with the complaint filed by Kuldeep Singh. The State denies that any injuries were caused to Manjit Singh.

The first point which requires determination is whether the presence of Manjit Singh in CIA Staff can be termed illegal. Prima facie, it is established on the record that Kuldeep Singh gave an application to the S.S.P. which was duly entered on 29.1.1998 at Sr. No. 19 in the office of the S.S.P. (Complaint Branch) and it was duly marked to S.I. Inderjeet Singh. A Parvana was issued on 29.1.1998 and Manjit Singh and Ranjit Singh were directed to be present in the CIA Staff on 30.1.1998. It can be, thus, reasonably inferred that Manjit Singh might be present in CIA Staff in pursuance of that Parvana. The State has the right to investigate the allegations of a citizen. it is not necessary for the State, at the first instance, to directly register a case. The man can be arrested only if some evidence comes against him that he had committed an offence. Keeping in view the fact that the Parvana was issued in a legal manner and the presence of Manjit Singh could be possible in pursuance of that ruqa, I am constrained to say that the presence of Manjit Singh in CIA Staff was not illegal.

The second point which survives for determination is whether this court should order for the registration of the case or not and award compensation to Manjit Singh.

Mr. Navkiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that Manjit Singh, at the first instance, had brought the matter to the notice of the Warrant Officer that the was tortured badly by the CIA Staff. Mr. Navkiran Singh further points out that on 31.1.1998, Manjit Singh was medically examined by a Govt. doctor who found as many as 9 injuries on his person and the probable duration of the injuries was within 24 hours and, in these circumstances, it is a fit case where enquiry should be held or at least directions should be given for the registration of the case. Further, the court should grant compensation. Support has been taken from Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of UP and ors., 1994 CAR 41, a judgment of the Supreme Court.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that even compensation cannot be granted to Manjit Singh because it is, prima facie, not established that he got the injuries at the hands of SI Inderjeet Singh or SI Tarsem Singh. The report of the Warrant Officer only indicates to the effect that "Manjit Singh reported me that he was tortured badly by CIA Staff". This report is nowhere a pointer that SI Inderjeet Singh and SI Tarsem Singh allegedly caused injuries to Manjit Singh. Rather, the case of Manjit Singh is that two other Constables had caused injuries. It is the admitted case that when the Warrant Officer visited the premises, both SI Inderjeet Singh and SI Tarsem Singh were not present. In these circumstances, I dispose of Crl. WP 175 of 1998, with the observation that let the petitioner Manjit Singh may file a criminal complaint against the guilty officers/officials and he can take all the pleas which have been taken up in this petition for claiming compensation and for the registration of the case. So far as Crl. WP 119 of 1998 is concerned, I have already held that the presence of Manjit Singh in the CIA Staff was not illegal.

Both the petitions stand disposed of.