High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 04 SHI CK 0001

Kreshan vs State of H.P. and Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 18 April 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kurian Joseph, C.J · Sanjay Karol, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal WPIL No. 2 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 305 words

Sanjay Karol, J.—On the allegation of Sh. Kreshan son of Sh. Phullu, resident of village Badholi Naya Gaon, Tehsil Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur (U.P.) that his family members, nine in number, both major and minor, are being illegally detained by Parween, Goldy, Meer Hasan and Mukesh, owners/Managers of Brick Kiln run under the name and style of A.K.M., village Kalri (Kaluwala), Police Station, Barotiwala, Distt. Solan (H.P.), notice in the petition was issued to the Respondents.

2.

Sh. Shubh Karan Singh, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nalagarh, has filed his affidavit clearly stating that upon inspection of the premises along with the S.H.O. and Labour Inspector, Barotiwala, it was found that none of the persons mentioned by the Petitioner were found at the spot. On further query, they were informed by Sh. Ram Pal and Sh. Naresh Kumar, who also hail from District Saharanpur (U.P.), that the family members of the Petitioner, who worked at the Brick Kiln had left the premises on 2.1.2011.

3.

The Labour Officer, Baddi, Distt. Solan, by way of separate affidavit has explained that upon verification of the records, it was so found that no amount towards wages was due and payable to any family member of the Petitioner. On the contrary, they owed certain sums to the Contractor.

4.

Sh. D. S. Minhas, Director General of Police, has also filed his personal affidavit to the effect that none of the family members of the Petitioner were detained by any one and in fact Mukesh Kumar and Geeta, son and daughter-in-law of the Petitioner made statements to the effect that they voluntarily left the place and were not detained by any one. Now they are working at a different place.

5.

In this view of the matter, no other and further orders are required to be passed and the petition stands closed.