High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 08 J&K CK 0069

Sahil Sharma @APPELLANT@Hash State and Anr

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 28 August 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjeev Kumar, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Other Writ Petition No. 1623 Of 2018

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

31 paragraphs · 700 words
1.

Through the medium of instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

a) MANDAMUS, commanding the respondents not to harass the petitioner without adopting due course of law;

b) Further directing the respondent No. 2 not to frame the petitioner in a false case.â€​

2.

The facts, as these emerge from the study of the file under consideration are that the petitioner runs his hotel business at Katra and is having deep

roots in the society and earns respect among his relatives as well as friends. The respondent No. 2, i.e., Station House Officer, Police Station,

Katra, District Reasi claims to have registered an FIR bearing No. 226/2017, registered at Police Station, Katra, District Reasi under Sections 427,

147 and 506 RPC at the instance of management of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Narayana Super Specialty Hospital, KakryalKatra, wherein it was

alleged that some persons have caused loss to the property of the said hospital on 01.12.2017 and they have also mentioned the names of some

persons in the said FIR. The respondent No. 2 seems to have conducted no investigation in the FIR referred above, but now all of sudden have

summoned the petitioner in Police Station, though the petitioner has no complicity in the commission of any offence referred in the aforesaid FIR and

was also not present on the scene of occurrence, as is alleged in the said FIR. When the petitioner enquired from respondent No. 2, it was found

that his name nowhere figures in the FIR registered by the respondent No. 2, but he is being harassed and summoned by the respondent No. 2 time

and again and made to sit in the Police Station whole day, whereas the fact remains that he is not involved in the commission of any offence.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not present at the time of alleged incident. He has been unnecessarily summoned

in the Police Station by the respondent No. 2 and harassed and humiliated without any reasons, though he is an innocent person. It is also submitted

that the whole of the hospital is under CCTV surveillance and if any activity is done by some miscreants, it is covered in the cameras, however, the

respondent No 2 instead of taking aid of the scientific methods and resorting to the use of the CCTV footage, is trying to rope an innocent man into a

case, which he never committed and is likely to have serious consequences upon his life. The respondent No. 2 is required to act fairly and he

cannot harass an innocent person by use of force when he is not involved in commission of any offence and he has the option of conducting

investigation by using CCTV footage, which is very much available in the hospital.Â

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that by frequently summoning the petitioner in the Police Station and thereby making him to sit for

a long time without any reasons, is a serious violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India guaranteed to the

citizens of India and the State Authorities cannot take law into their hands by keeping a person under confinement when he is not involved in

commission of any offence. In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition.Â

5.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if the instant writ petition is

disposed of by directing the respondent No. 2 not to harass the petitioner without any sufficient material in the aforesaid FIR andwithout adopting due

course of law. To this, other side has no objection.

6.

In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of

the instant writ petition by directing the respondent No. 2 not to harass the petitioner without any sufficient material in the aforesaid FIR andwithout

adopting due course of law.

7.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of along with connected MP.