Pati Ram Dabral vs State of Uttarakhand

Petitioner has filed present petition seeking direction to the respondents no. 2 and 3 to provide protection to the petitioner so that he may live normal life without any fear and threat peacefully.

It is not mentioned in the prayer that petitioner is seeking protection against whom but from the perusal of the pleadings, it appears that petitioner is seeking protection against respondent no. 4, who happens to be his own son and respondent no. 5, which is a rehabilitation centre.

The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is 77-year old retired government teacher. He is getting pension. Respondent no. 4, son of the petitioner, is trying to grab the petitioner''s land and due to this reason, respondent no. 4 conniving with respondent no. 5 had forcibly admitted him in the rehabilitation centre. They kept the petitioner in the Rehabilitation Centre for about 3 years. Respondent no. 5 forcibly got signature of the petitioner on the cheques and thereafter, took money from his account.

It is contended that respondent no. 4 is again trying to admit the petitioner in rehabilitation centre, therefore, petitioner has approached this Court. On 19.05.2017, petition was heard and following order was passed:

"Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate present for the petitioner.

Mr. D.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. N.S. Kanyal, Brief Holder present for the State.

The petitioner alleges that he is being tortured at the hands of his son. The petition is 77 years of age and in spite of his request to the police, no action has been taken.

The Additional Superintendent of Police, Kotdwar shall ensure that the petitioner is present before the ACJM, Kotdwar and in the absence of ACJM, Kotdwar, to any other Magistrate in Kotdwar, who shall take statement of the petitioner. The statement of the petitioner shall be produced before this Court on 29.05.2017."

In compliance of the Court''s order, statement of the petitioner was recorded. Copy of the statement of the petitioner recorded by ACJM, Kodwar is produced before us by Mr. D.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General in the Court, which is taken on record.

In the statement, petitioner made allegation against his family members viz. his wife Laxmi, son Rajneesh (respondent no. 4 herein), daughter-in-law Vineeta, grand son Sonu that they took him to Rehabilitation Centre for treatment and he remained there for 37 months without his wish. In the Rehabilitation Centre, they used to take his signature on cheques and withdrew the amount. It is also stated that he is perfectly well and does not drink liquor. There is threat to his life. He apprehends that his family members will again admit him in the rehabilitation centre.

We have considered the statement of the petitioner. We do not think to issue any other direction except asking the respondents to give protection to the petitioner, as and when, required. This does not mean that we want to restrain the family members of the petitioner for giving him treatment of any kind, which is advised by the doctors / psychiatrists and which is necessary for the improvement of his health. We accordingly dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent no. 3 to grant protection to the petitioner, as and when, required. It will be open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy against the private respondents, if so advised.