Gurmel Singh vs Incharge, Police Chowki Dharamgarh

V.K. Jhanji, J.

In this petition filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the grievance of petitioner, Gurmel Singh, was that Amrik Singh son of Piara Singh has illegally been detained by Incharge of Police Chowki, Dharamgarh under P.S. Sunam, District Sangrur. In the petition it was alleged that one Niranjan Singh son of Jang Singh, respondent No. 2 herein, had a dispute of Pahi as the lands of respondent No. 2 and the detenu are adjoining. Respondent No. 2 being close to Incharge of Police Chowki, Dharamgarh, got Amrik Singh illegally detained. It was also alleged that during detention, third degree treatment was meted out to him. He was hand cuffed and brought in the village Chowk where his face was blackened and he was humiliated. On a prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court issued notice to the respondents for 2.5.1995 and a Warrant Officer was appointed to search the detenu at this place of confinement or any other place to be pointed put by the petitioner. Warrant Officer during search found the alleged detenu in Police Chowki and on enquiry it was revealed that neither any case had been registered against him nor he was wanted by the police. However, a complaint without date was shown to the Warrant Officer on the basis of which it was alleged that Amrik Singh had been called to the police station. In the written statement filed by way of affidavit, ASI Surinder Pal Singh Incharge Police Post, Dharamgarh, District Sangrur, took a definite stand that on 30.4.1995, Niranjan Singh, respondent No. 2 came to the police post and handed over a complaint against Amrik Singh. On receipt of the complaint, he deputed an official to go to the village and ask the Sarpanch to come to the police post with both the parties. He also stated that on 30.4.1995 in the evening, the village Sarpanch came to the police post along with both the parties and after some talk, the Sarpanch as well as the complainant requested him to give 23 days time to sort out and compromise the matter at their own level. On this, he asked the parties to come to the police post as at 5.00 p.m. on 3.5.1995. On 3.5.1995 ASI Surinder Pal Singh left for Malerkotla to attend the Court as a witness in case, FIR No. 98/1994 under Section 452/323 IPC, P.S. Malerkotla and after attending the court he came back to the police post at 6.10 p.m. In his affidavit, he further stated that on his coming back, he found Amrik Singh sitting inside the police post whereas the Sarpanch and others had gone out and sat at the shop in front of the police post. In the meantime, Warrant Officer came and found Amrik Singh sitting in the police post. He in his affidavit stated that in these circumstances, Amrik Singh had come to the police post.

Since there was a serious dispute on facts, this court directed the District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur, to enquire into the matter and return his finding. The District and Sessions Judge, after giving due opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, submitted a detailed report running into 19 pages and as a result of the enquiry he concluded as follows:

"(i) the detenu Amrik Singh has failed to prove if he has any dispute with Niranjan Singh respondent in relation to the Pahi in the village;

(ii) it is not established if Niranjan Singh respondent and ASI Surinder Pal Singh were having any close contacts;

(iii) Amrik Singh detenu misbehaved with Rajwinder Kaur daughter of Niranjan Singh on 29.4.1995 in the house of Niranjan Singh;

(iv) Niranjan Singh complained to ASI Surinder Pal Singh and filed an application upon which Amrik Singh was called to the police post by ASI Surinderpal Singh, respondent on 29.4.1995;

(v) Gurmel Singh and other persons, went to the police post to enquire about Amrik Singh and they were also detained from the evening of 29.4.1995 till evening of 30.4.1995;

(vi) Amrik Singh was kept in illegal detention by ASI Surinder Pal Singh in the police post Dharamgarh from 29.4.1995 to 3.5.1995 without any case having been registered against him;

(vii) During the period of detention, Amrik Singh was treated roughly and was given beating by the police of Police Post, Dharamgarh;

(viii) the face of Amrik Singh was blackened and he was made to stand in the chowk for about two hours on 30.4.1995; and

(ix) the respondents have propounded a false version that Amrik Singh (detenu) was called at police post on 30.4.1995."

ASI Suridern Pal Singh against whom a finding has been returned that Amrik Singh was kept in illegal detention by him from 29.4.1995 to 3.5.1995 without any case having been registered against him and during this period, Amrik Singh was treated roughly and given beating by the police and that his face was blackened and he was made to stand at the chowk for about 2 hours on 30.4.1995, has filed an affidavit tendering his unqualified apology in this regard. At the hearing of petition, he came present in court and stated that he has an unblemished service record and therefore, a lenient view may be taken against him.

Learned counsel for ASI Surinder Pal Singh has submitted that the petitioner has not come to this court with clean hands as in the petition he had stated that respondent No. 2 had a dispute with the detenu in regard to Pahi and in that connection the detenu had been called to police post where he was kept in illegal detention and was humiliated, whereas before the District and Sessions Judge, the detenu has failed to prove that he had any dispute with Niranjan Singh with regard to Pahi in the village. Counsel also submitted that the District and Sessions Judge has also found that Niranjan Singh had no close contacts with Surinder Pal Singh ASI rather it has been found by the District and Sessions Judge that Amrik Singh, detenu had mishaved with Rajwinder Kaur daughter of Niranjan Singh in the house of Niranjan Singh. Niranjan Singh had made a complaint in this regard to the Incharge, Police Post. Dharamgarh, who called Amrik Singh to the police post.

It is true that the District and Sessions Judge had found that Amrik Singh had misbehaved with Rajwinder Kaur daughter of Niranjan Singh on 29.4.1995 and in this regard a complaint was made to ASI Surinder Pal Singh and on the basis of the same he was called to the police post, but ASI Surinder Pal Singh had no justification to detain Amrik Singh without a case having been registered against him. In case Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1994 SC 1349, in para 24 it has been laid down by the Apex Court that "no arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The Police Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a Police Officer in the interest of protection of the Constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the persons complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a persons of his liberty is a serious matter."

In this case, since the District and Sessions Judge in his report has found that Amrik Singh was kept in illegal confinement from 29.4.1995 to 3.5.1995 without any case having been registered against him, there had been denial of right of Amrik Singh to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on account of his illegal confinement and his being subjected to torture in such confinement. The prayer for the relief of writ of habeas corpus though no longer survives as the detenu is now free, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case I am of the view that the detenu should be suitably compensated for denial of this right. I therefore, direct respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/ to Amrik Singh by way of compensation for the denial of his right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The said payment shall be made within a period of one month failing which the amount shall be recoverable as arresrs of land revenue through the Collector, Sangrur, with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from the date of illegal confinement of Amrik Singh, i.e. from 29.4.1995 till the realisation of the amount. The award of this compensation is independent of the remedy which Amrik Singh may have in private law for damages against the person(s) responsible for his illegal detention and torture.

It is, however, made clear that the observations made in the order will not in any way operate to the prejudice of respondents in defending themselves in the proceedings that may be initiated against them in relation to the detention of Amrik Singh.

This writ petition stands pased of accordingly.

JUDGMENTed Accordingly.