The Court quashed a direction by the SSP, Kapurthala requiring written orders for the arrest of accused persons, holding it invalid as no police officer can obstruct the ordinary course of law.
The impugned direction imposing a condition for arrest is quashed and held invalid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-29305 of 2008 Date of decision : 10.12.2008
Vir Chand Goyal
. ....Petitioner
Versus
Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr.G.S.Sawhney, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
S. D. ANAND, J.
Vide order dated 24.9.2008 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. M-24903 of 2008, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala was directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner, as documented in the course of representation dated 23.6.2008. It was further directed that the exercise shall be concluded within a period of one month from that order.
In pursuance thereof, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala directed the institution of the FIR but simultaneously ordered that “if the accused persons are to be arrested then the written orders have to be taken from the undersigned.”
The only grievance of the petitioner is that the SSP had no jurisdiction to pass an order to the above effect.
There was obviously no justification for the SSP, Kapurthala to pass an order that written orders had to be obtained from him if the accused persons were to be arrested in the relevant case. The law must have its own unhindered course and no police officer of whatever level can be allowed to pass an order of the indicated category.
In the light of the fore-going discussion, the impugned direction is held to be invalid.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
December 10, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Senior Superintendent of Police had the jurisdiction to impose a condition requiring written orders for the arrest of accused persons in a specific case.
Whether a police officer of any level can pass an order obstructing the unhindered course of law.
Vir Chand Goyal
Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala
S. D. Anand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
