Nand Kishore Kapoor vs State of Haryana

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

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.

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.

After the Warrant Officer submitted his report this Court ordered an inquiry in the Criminal Misc. No. 38 of 1996 which was marked to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate submitted his report on 10.7.1996. On the basis of the material before him, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that Nand Kishore Kapoor was illegally detained in the premises of CIA Staff, Faridabad.

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 R1. 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 R1 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 R1 is a matter to be decided in appropriate proceedings, but not in this case.

It is true that even according to the police no case has been registered against the petitioner Nand Kishore Kapoor. Whether the allegations made in Annexure R1 are true or not is not a matter to be decided in these proceedings. In the circumstances of the case and after going through the entire record, I do not think that this is a fit case to embark upon and ordering inquiry whether any false affidavit has been filed. But the fact remains that there is a dispute between the Directors of Bony Rubber Company Private Limited and also Bony Shoe Company Pvt. Ltd. in which the petitioner Nand Kishore Kapoor, Dr. Ashok Bhatia, Raj Kumar Bhatia and Ved Parkash Bhatia were the Directors. It appears that there is some dispute in regard to the removal of the Director of the Company namely Radha Kishan Bhatia. It is clear from the averments in the petition that Dr. Ashok Bhatia and other directors were also detained by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 namely D.I.G., Gurgaon and Superintendent of Police, Faridabad. Thus, it is clear that not only the petitioner, but other Directors have also been detained. It is also clear from the petition that the proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. have been pending between the parties. There is no acceptable evidence on record to show that Nand Kishore Kapoor had been taken into custody on 4.3.1994 at about 3 P.M. by the Incharge, CIA Staff, Sector 8, Faridabad as alleged in the petition. From the report of the Warrant Officer, it is very clear that the alleged detenu Nand Kishore Kapoor was neither in police lock up nor was he found in any room of the CIA Staff, but was standing outside the verandah of the CIA Staff. Though this Court ordered inquiry by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, I am not prepared to express any opinion on the said report as the said report does not deal with the rival contentions of the parties. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who has been appointed as Inquiry Officer examined four witnesses on behalf of the petitioner and 8 witnesses on behalf of the respondents. Since in these proceedings, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, it is not necessary for me to go through the enquiry report. In the petition filed for Hebeas Corpus the petitioner never claimed any compensation for illegal detention. He only sought for issuance of a writ of Hebeas Corpus. The writ of Hebeas Corpus became infructuous since the alleged detenu Nand Kishore Kapoor was found to be a free man only standing in the verandah of the CIA Staff premises. He was not detained in illegal custody by anybody at that time. Therefore, I am of the opinion that ordering an inquiry by the Chief Judicial Magistrate itself is not warranted and justified. Since an enquiry has been ordered into the matter, I have gone through the enquiry report. Alongwith the enquiry report the proceedings have not been submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In fact a look at the enquiry report clearly shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate went beyond the scope of his enquiry report. There is no acceptable evidence produced before the Inquiry Officer that at about 3 P.M. on 4.3.1994 Harcharan Singh, Inspector/Incharge, CIA Staff (respondent No. 5) came to the factory of Bony Rubber Co. Private Ltd. and took away Nand Kishore on the pretext that some information was required by the police with regard to affairs of the company.

On a close reading of the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, I do not want to express my view on the same since no relief can be granted to the petitioner on the basis of the said report. There is no prayer in the main application either for grant of compensation or for taking any action against the alleged persons who are responsible for detaining the petitioner. But once Nand Kishore Kapoor is made known to this court that he has been a free man and he was not in the custody of any body, there was no question for ordering any further inquiry. This court should have closed the matter on the basis of the report of the Warrant Officer leaving open to the parties to seek their own remedies.

Admittedly, there are civil disputes between the parties who are Directors of Bony Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Bony Shoe Co. Pvt. Ltd. The application for Habeas Corpus and criminal proceedings cannot be used for the purpose of settling the civil disputes. It certainly amounts to abuse of process of court.

In this view of the matter, I am not in a position to give any relief to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek such relief as he deems fit under law.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.