Court on its own motion vs State of H.P. and others

A letter petition received from applicant Smt. Samandali Devi, wife of late Shri Madan Lal was ordered to be treated as CWPIL, wherein it was alleged that she was working as a Mid-Day-Meal Worker and on 24.08.2017, as instructed by a police officer, she had gone to Police Station, Dharamshala at 3:45 p.m. It was further mentioned in the letter petition that when she inquired as to why she had been called to the Police Station, then a police officer told her that the Station House Incharge had gone to Hospital and only he could tell the applicant as to why she had been called to the Police Station. It was further mentioned in the letter petition that at around 4:30 p.m., when Station Incharge came to the Police Station, he asked her as to whether she belongs to Skoh. When she answered in affirmative, he used derogatory language against her and also said that the applicant be physically molested. It was further mentioned in the letter petition that on this, 20-25 persons gathered at the spot and when one police officer offered her water to drink, the same was also snatched by the Station Incharge. It was further mentioned in the letter petition that despite her repeatedly asking as to why she was called in the Police Station, officer concerned refused to tell her and she was again directed to appear in the Police Station alongwith two witnesses. It was further mentioned in the letter petition that thereafter she had given her application to the Superintendent of Police Vijay Saklani, who telephonically scolded the concerned police official and thereafter the concerned police official also apologized to the applicant. It was further mentioned in the letter petition that the scolding given to the police official and the apology of the police official was not enough and that appropriate action be taken against the official concerned.

This Court while calling upon the State to file reply to the letter petition, had requested Mr. Tenzu Tashi Negi, learned counsel to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.

Reply on behalf of the State stands filed and a perusal of the same inter alia demonstrates that the complaint filed by the applicant was duly enquired into by SI Kuldeep Raj and the official concerned was scolded as well as advised to be careful in future. It further stands mentioned in the reply that the applicant was satisfied with the action taken by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala, who had telephonically scolded the official concerned on 25.08.2017 and petitioner had submitted by way of her statement Annexure R-1 that she was not interested to pursue the matter.

We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned Advocate General.

After taking into consideration the averments made in the reply as well as the statement of the complainant (Annexure R-1), no further order is required to be passed in the matter by this Court and the case is accordingly closed, with liberty to the applicant to have further recourse against the official concerned, if so advised, in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of.