Ram Lubhaya vs State of Punjab and anr..

Harphul Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

The petitioner Ram Lubhaya has stated in this writ petition that he is a public spirited man and social worker of considerable importance in his area. He is SeniorVice President, Brahmin Sabha, Punjab Joint Secretary District Congress Committee, Pathankot; Vice President, Brahmin Sabha, Pathankot and President, Dairy Union, Pathankot.

On his being informed by Shri Ashok Sharma, Advocate of Pathankot and Captain Surjan Singh resident of Kali Mata Mandir, Pathankot, that his name had been entered in the History Sheet Register maintained by the Police Station and his name was displayed in the list of Bad Characters of the City along with his copy of the photograph, he was utterly surprised to know all this. He has alleged in the petition that all this has been done at the instance of Balkar Singh, Inspector, Police Station City, Pathankot, respondent No. 2, who is inimical to the petitioner. The petitioner being a public man has been raising his voice against the Inspector and other corrupt officers of the area and has, thus, earned the wrath ademity of respondent No. 2, who is all out to cause every sort of possible harm to the petitioner. He has averted in. the petition that he is a respectable man and has not been convicted in any case by any Court of law so far. Only one case under section 199, Indian Penal Code, vide First Information Report No. 57 of 1991 is pending against him.

Reply in the shape of an affidavit of Shri S.K. Goel, IPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, has been filed on behalf of both the respondents. Relevant portion of the reply reads as under :

"That the contents of para No. 4 of the petition are denied for want of knowledge. Sh. Ashok Sharma, Advocate and Captain Surjan Singh the deponents are close friends of the petitioner. The petitioner Ram Lubhaya is of bad character, the detail of cases registered against him are as under :

a) A Criminal complaint No. 16.1 of 1990 under sections 354/506/500, Indian Penal Code, filed in the Court of Sh. S.S. Mehndiratta JMIC Pathankot by Smt. Abnash Sharma.

b) Case First Information No. 57/91 under sections 188, 452/427/336, Indian Penal Code. 4/5 Noise Control Act Police Station City Pathankot Surjan Singh the deponent was also challaned in this case.

c) Case First Information Report No. 181/71 under Sections 366/376, Indian Penal Code Police Station Kathu Nangal District Amritsar (The petitioner raped a girl aged about 1617 years

(d) Case FIR No. 180/72 under Sections 406/420/408, Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kathu Nangal District Amritsar. The petitioner was sentenced for two years and fine Rs. 3000/

e) Case FIR No. 129/71 under sections 419/420 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kathu Nangal District Amritsar.

f) Case FIR No. 33/90 under Sections 452/506/324/148/149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Pathankot.

In the reply, the action of the police has been justified.

Counter affidavit has been filed by Ram Lubhaya petitioner rebutting the allegations made in the reply.

In the midst of the arguments on January 16, 1992, the State counsel was allowed to file the affidavit of respondent No. 2 also.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.S. Bhullar, states that the writ petition deserves to be allowed, particularly when the petitioner has not been convicted finally in any case so far. He goes to the extent of saying that the petitioner is neither a habitual offender nor such a bad man in the sense that his History Sheet could be opened under rule 23.9 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Volume III). He has further submitted that his client had levelled allegations of mala fide and vindictiveness against respondent No. 2, Balkar Singh Inspector Police Station City Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, but strangely enough, an affidavit by way of reply has been filed by Shri Samant Kumar Goel, IPC Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, which is undated and without proper verification, and affidavit by way of reply on behalf of Balkar Singh Inspector, respondent No. 2 has been filed only on January 16, 1992, though the said affidavit also does not bear the date and is not verified according to law. The learned counsel has also stated at the bar that the factual position narrated in, these affidavits is also Incorrect, for example, he submits that the exact position in reply to para 4 is as under :

a) The petitioner was acquitted on April 18, 1991 in the criminal complaint No. 16.1 of 1990, under sections 354/506/500 Indian Penal Code;

b) in case FIR No. 57/9 1, only charge under Section 1189, Indian Penal Code, has been framed and the case is still pending trial;

c) this case does not relate to the petitioner at all;

d) in case FIR No. 180/72 under sections 406/420/408, Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was acquitted on September 17, 1980;

e) in case FIR No. 129/71 under sections 419/420, Indian Penal Code, the challan was never presented, rather the case was cancelled and

f) Case FIR No. 33/90 under sections 452/506/324/148/149, Indian. Penal Code was cancelled on July 24, 1990.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is neither addicted to crime, nor is he a habitual offender. In order to substantiate his argument, he has pressed into service the decisions in Amrik Singh v. Commissioner of Police, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 664 ; Parvinder Singh Dakha v. State of Punjab and others, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 274 and Raghubir Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others, 1988(2) Recent C.R. 217.

The learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, Mr S. S. Kang, has argued that the petitioner has been charged under section 188, Indian Penal Code, in case FIR No. 57/91, and the said case is still pending trial. He also states that the petitioner was convicted in case FIR No. 280/72 under sections 406/420/408, Indian Penal Code, though later on he was acquitted in that case. In these circumstances, the learned State counsel submits that the action of the police in opening the History Sheet of the petitioner is not without any basis and is quite justified.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy AdvocateGeneral, for the State, I do not find the action of the police or the State as justified. The cases pending against the petitioner or the facts brought on record, do not show that the petitioner is addicted to crime or is a habitual offender. Only one case FIR No. 57/91 is pending against the petitioner, which still awaits the decision and in an other case though the petitioner was convicted, but later on he was acquitted. The other cases referred to in the reply of the Senior Superintendent of Police stand cancelled. This factual position has not been rebutted.

In view of the factual position and the case law cited at the bar, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the Chart and other records namely, Surveillance Register of the Bad Characters maintained in Police Station City, Pathankot, and also close the History Sheet of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT accordingly.