Prem Nath vs Assistant Sub Inspector Hukam Singh

G.C. Garg, J.—The petitioner has brought the present petition u/s 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act for taking suo moto notice of the criminal contempt against the respondent, primarily, on the allegations that the respondent and other police officials arrested him on 10.2.1996 in a criminal case registered vide F.I.R. No. 13 dated 9.2.1996. The petitioner was detained and turtured physically and during the period of his confinement, the respondent fixed clamps made of two large wooden pieces on the right leg of the petitioner. On 11.2.1996, the petitioner was handcuffed and taken in the public and later on produced in handcuffs before the Duty Magistrate by whom he was released on bail. The sole grievance of the petitioner therefore is that in view of the observations/directions of the Supreme Court in Citizens for Demoracy v. State of Assam, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 600 that handcuffs or other fatter shall not be forced on a prisonerconvict or undertrial while lodged in jail anywhere in the country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to court and back, the respondent was not obliged to handcuff him and the act of putting handcuffs on him amounts to violating of the above rule laid down by the Supreme Court and this action of the respondent is summarily punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act.

In response to notice, respondent has filed reply stoutly denying the allegations as contained in the contempt petition.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going thorough the allegations in the petition and the reply filed thereto, I am of the opinion that no case is made out to further proceed with the matter. In the contempt petition, the petitioners has specifically alleged that he was handcuffed by the respondent and the other accompanying police officials in a criminal case registered against him and others which was witnessed by Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate representing the petitioner in the criminal case and Kamal Kumar son of Manohar Lal. It is further the allegation of the petitioner that while handcuffed, he was taken in the public and this has caused humiliation and embarrass to him. But the petitioner has not produced on record any material excpt his own affidavit, to support the above allegations. The petitioner, in order to satisfy the court at lease prima facie about the genuineness of his allegations, could produce affidavits of some persons who allegedly saw him in handcuffs. Not only this, he could even produce the affidavit of his counsel representing him in the criminal case. It was otherwise also open to the petitioner to move an application to the Magistrate before whom he was produced, to highlight the fact of his being handcuffed by the police. If the petitioner had so done, this fact would have been reflected in the order passed by the Duty Magistrate whereby he was ordered to be enlarged on bail. Though it would not be of much significance to mention here yet it is apparent from the order dated 11.2.1996 of the Magistrate, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P1 along with the reply of the respondent, that the petitioner was arrested in case punishable under sections 323/324/325/342 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and thus the respondent in performance of his official duties was under obligation to arrest the petitioner. Thus, the story put forth by the petitioner in the present petition that since he made a complaint against the respondent to the higher authorities and this annoyed the respondent and it is why that he put the handcuffs on the petitioner to humiliate him in the eyes of public, seems to be concocted one. The respondent has categorically denied the factum of handcuffing the petitioner and the latter has not brought before this court any document evidencing the above fact. In the circumstances, I find that this is not a fit case for further proceeding against the respondent. Contempt petition is consequently dismissed and rule is discharged.