Punjab and Haryana High Court brings Diwali cheer, orders release of woman, son

Amid Diwali celebrations, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered the immediate release of a woman and her son “illegally confined” in a criminal case involving a “civil dispute” by the Ludhiana police following alleged intervention by a “sitting AIG of Punjab Police, who remained at various posts in the district like the DCP”.

Citing the significance of Diwali while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, Justice Sanjay Vashisth asserted the hearing of the case was advanced by a day “probably considering the fact that festival of Diwali, which is celebrated by each and every citizen of the country, is awaiting the presence of the detainees at home”.

Justice Vashisth’s bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the police, allegedly pressured by the senior Punjab police officer connected to the complainant, had turned the civil dispute over leased property into a criminal case to compel the family to vacate the premises.

The bench was told the police agency was “hand in glove” with the AIG. The registration of a cheating and forgery case on October 24 at the Jodhewal police station, on the basis of complaints dated April 4 and May 15, was nothing but “arm twisting approach adopted by the police”.

The petitioner’s counsel contended there was a constant pressure from the police to hand over the original “additional” lease-deed. Apprehending that the document would either be destroyed or tampered with if handed over to the police, an application was moved before a Ludhiana court. The police in response submitted a report that criminal case was not registered against the “detainee” woman and she was also not required. “Despite submission of the report before the court and consequent withdrawal of the application by the woman, the detainees and other family members have now been slapped with the FIR”, it was added.

Justice Vashisth during the course of hearing observed that the SHO of the police station concerned failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the delay in registering the FIR, especially when the complainant – now abroad — was present in India during the initial complaint dates. The court stated, “No plausible and satisfactory explanation has been given... why no action was taken immediately by the police.”

“Prima facie, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner through present petition seems to be more probable and if truly so, undoubtedly, undue harassment has already been caused to the detenues by the police. However, same is still under examination before the court,” Justice Vashisth observed.

The court also empowered the DGP to initiate an independent inquiry into the alleged police misconduct. The bench made it clear that this inquiry was required to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of SSP before submitting a report to the court by the next hearing date on November 25.