Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, November 23, 2024

Punjab And Haryana High Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost In Contempt Case Against Police Officer For Handcuffing Accused

Posted in: Criminal Law
Mon, Apr 24, 23, 10:50, 2 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4852
Suresh Kumar Satija v. Balwinder Singh Touri that: Considering the fact that the petitioner was handcuffed by the respondent, the respondent is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which will be deposited in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employee’s Welfare Association.

While taking the most strictest, most strongest and most straightforward stand, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Suresh Kumar Satija v. Balwinder Singh Touri in COCP-2490-2018 (O&M) that was pronounced as recently as on April 12, 2023 did not restrain itself from imposing a very heavy cost of Rs 1 lakh on a police officer who had handcuffed Suresh Kumar Satija who is an Akali Dal party member while taking him to market in connection with investigation in a 2018 forgery case thus displaying total zero tolerance for handcuffing and it must be emulated by all the courts in India. It must be mentioned here that the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan while ruling in his courageous judgment said most emphatically that:
Considering the fact that the petitioner was handcuffed by the respondent, the respondent is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-, which will be deposited in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employee’s Welfare Association. However, it will have no bearing on service carrier of respondent. Hon’ble Mr Justice Sangwan said that it is apparent on record that the petitioner was handcuffed by Touri when during the course of investigation he was taken to the shop of his sons at Abohar.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that:
This petition is pending since 2018.

While dwelling on the cause of action which compelled the petitioner to file the petition, the Bench mentions in the next para of this notable judgment that, The petitioner alleges the violation of order dated 24.9.2008 passed in CWP No.9650 of 2007 as well as the direction dated 27.8.2014 in CWP No.17431 of 2014.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then while dwelling on the facts of the case envisages in the next para of this robust judgment that:
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had contested the assembly elections of Abohar constituency and is an active member of Akali Dal. It is stated that in the said election, the candidate of the ruling party lost the election and due to this grudge, FIR No.50 dated 17.6.2018 under Sections 465, 467, 471 IPC and Section 7 of the E.C., Act at Police Station Bahawala, District Fazilka (Sections 468, 420, 120-B IPC and E.C. Act added later on) was registered.

Further, the Bench then states in the next para of this refreshing judgment that:
It is further stated that the petitioner was arrested by respondent No.1 on 17.6.2018 and was produced before the Court on 18.6.2018 when police remand was given for one day till 19.6.2018.

Furthermore, the Bench then enunciates in the next para that:
Counsel for the petitioner further submits that while producing the petitioner in the Court, he was humiliated as he was put in handcuff and was asked to go through the local market and, thus, there is a violation of the aforesaid two orders, wherein it is held that handcuffing of a person is a cruel and degrading act and should not be ordinarily resorted, except in extreme circumstances and exceptional cases.

On the contrary, we see that the Bench then also discloses in the next para that:
Reply by way of affidavit of the respondent is on record in which after verifying the facts of the FIR, it is stated that the respondent was posted as Additional SHO, Police Station Bahawala and after the petitioner was arrested, he made a disclosure statement that he can produce the relevant documents by going to the shop i..e Satija Telecom, Amarapur. When the respondent took the petitioner to the shop in village Amarapur, the shop was closed and the petitioner was allowed to talk to his relative using the mobile number i.e. 85588-06488 of the respondent to one number 92566-04912. Thereafter, on the asking of the petitioner, he was taken to Abohar at the shop of the sons of petitioner. There, the sons of the petitioner, who are Advocates were present along with number of his supporters and the respondent apprehended that their intention is to interfering in the investigation, as they stopped the government vehicle to move towards the shop of the son of the complainant. Therefore, as a preventive measure, he was put under handcuffs and all these facts were brought to the notice of the senior officers and even the police zimni was recorded on 19.6.2018 in this regard.

As things stand, the Bench then discloses in the next para that:
It is stated that an enquiry was conducted by a team of senior police officials, which recorded a finding that the Special Investigating Team has come to a conclusion that SI Balwinder Singh handcuffed the accused keeping in view the situation at the spot and has not violated the directions of the Court. It is also stated that the petitioner is involved in as many as 10 FIRs, the details of which is given as under :-

(i) FIR No.198 dated 28.8.1998 under Sections 353, 186, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station City-1, Abohar- convicted on 18.2.2002.

(ii) FIR No.3 dated 5.1.2017 under Sections 177, 178, 448, 120-B IPC, Police station City Fazilka- the trial is going in the Court.

(iii) FIR No.94 dated 12.6.2011 under Sections 447, 511, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station City-1, Abohar (FIR quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.)

(iv) FIR No.124 dated 25.7.2018 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station City-1, Abohar – the matter is under investigation.

(v) FIR No.163 dated 22.7.2003 under Section 382 IPC, Police Station City-1, Abohar – the cancellation report prepared on 6.5.2005.

(vi) FIR No.185 dated 11.8.2003 under Sections 382, 323, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station City-1, Abohar – declared innocent on 26.7.2005.

(vii) FIR No.228 dated 10.9.2003 under Sections 452, 382, 323, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station City-1, Abohar – acquitted on 9.10.2009.

(viii) FIR No.138 dated 24.7.2017 under Sections 323, 509, 354, 342, 316, 109, 511, 336, 149 IPC, Police Station City-1, Abohar – the cancellation report prepared on 4.1.2018.

(ix) FIR No.117 dated 18.4.2003 under Sections 365, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Khuian Sarwar;

(x) FIR No.12 dated 2.2.2017 under Sections 323, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station City-1, Abohar – the cancellation report prepared on 25.5.2012.

As it turned out, the Bench then specifies in the next para stating that, Learned Stated counsel submits that since the petitioner is a habitual offender and there was apprehension that he may escape from the judicial custody and the sons of the petitioner have gathered a huge crowd at the spot and, therefore, as a preventive measure, the petitioner was handcuffed, a fact, which has been proved by the Special Investigating Team constituted under the directions of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka on 16.1.2019.

What’s more, the Bench then hastens to add in the next para stating that:
In reply, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want any compensation, however, heavy fine be imposed on the respondent for violating the judgment/directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding handcuffing of a prisoner/under trial.

Simply put, the Bench then also reiterated in the next para of this noteworthy judgment that:
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent on record that the petitioner was handcuffed by the respondent on 19.6.2018 when during the course of investigation he was taken to the shop of his sons at Abohar. It has also come on record that a number of persons gathered at the spot and, therefore, the respondent decided to handcuff the petitioner so as to prevent him from escaping from the police custody. As per the report of the Special Investigating Team, a finding is recorded that the situation was as such that the respondent had to handcuff the petitioner.

On the face of it, the Bench then seeks to bring out observing that:
A perusal of the record would show that though the petitioner has alleged political rivalry against the other party against whom he has contested the election. However, in the petition there is no mala fide against the respondent to hold that the action of the respondent was intentional or mala fide.

As a corollary, the Bench then specifies in the next para that:
In reply, the learned State counsel, on instructions from the respondent, who is present in the Court, submits that he is ready to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner. However, the counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions that the petitioner do not want any costs from the respondent and the respondent should be held guilty of the contempt of the directions of the Court.

It cannot be glossed over that the Bench then points out in the next para of this remarkable judgment that:
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the respondent, considering the situation at the spot, when during investigation, the respondent, being the Investigating Officer had taken the petitioner to the shops of his sons at Abohar where a large number of people gathered and tried to stop the government vehicle from proceeding further, the respondent decided to handcuff the petitioner. Even the report of the Special Investigating Team has exonerated the respondent in this regard and there is nothing on record that the petitioner had challenged the Special Investigating Team’s report before any higher authority.

Most significantly, the Bench then while displaying absolute zero tolerant approach towards handcuffing mandates in the next para directing that:
However, considering the fact that the petitioner was handcuffed by the respondent, the respondent is directed to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-, which will be deposited in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employee’s Welfare Association. However, it will have no bearing on service carrier of respondent.

What’s more, the Bench then states that:
The costs is deposited and receipt No.1023 dated 12.4.2023 is attached with the main file.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in the last para that, Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

All said and done, we thus see quite distinctly that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it indubitably clear that if the men in uniform ever dare to indulge in handcuffing where it is not required at all then those who do so would be subjected to facing the most strictest punishment like penalty of Rs 1 lakh as we see in this leading case. It is a no-brainer that this will send a very strong message to all the police officers and so also the men in uniform that they cannot dare to take the legal rights of even the accused for granted and if they still dare to take for granted then they would be made to pay through their nose as we see in this leading case! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top