Dismissed

Harikesh v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC4 May 2012CRM-M/2011/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 praying for protection against alleged police misbehaviour and non-registration of FIR. The court noted departmental action initiated against implicated police officials but dismissed the prayer to register an FIR, leaving the petitioner liberty to file a criminal complaint.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petitioner left liberty to file criminal complaint.

Harikesh Vs State of Haryana… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc. M 2011 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Criminal Misc. M 2011 of 2012 Date of decision: 04.05.2012

¶4

Harikesh

¶5

........ Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s)

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

-.-

¶10

Present: Mr. J S Saini, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. J S Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent State

¶12

Mr. H S Sullar, Advocate for respondents No. 6, 7 and 8

¶13

-.-

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

¶18

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for protection of life and liberty of the petitioner.

¶19

It is stated that respondent Nos. 5 to 8, who are police officials had misbehaved and beat him up on 25.09.2011 but still, no FIR has been registered against them.

¶20

Reply has been filed by the State. In para 3 of the said reply, it

¶21

Criminal Misc. M 2011 of 2012 2

¶22

is stated that the petitioner was found sleeping while posted as Security Guard at ATM Booth. The police party told the petitioner to be alert and watchful but instead he started quarrelling and misbehaved with the police party. The uniform of the police officials was also damaged in the scuffle. Para 4 of the reply reads as under:-

¶23

“4. That during the course of inquiry, the statements of police persons were also recorded wherein they denied the allegations levelled by the petitioner. However, as per inquiry report wherein CCTV footage of the ATM was also examined, it was found that two police officials namely EASI Bhag Singh No. 1094/Ambala and Constable Balkar Singh No. 1083/Ambala were found to be indulging in misbehaviour with the petitioner and in view of this departmental action has been initiated against the charged officials.”

¶24

In view of the above, it is apparent that the departmental action

¶25

has already been initiated against those police officials who were found indulging in misbehaviour with the petitioner. This Court has no doubt that the action initiated against the said police official shall be taken to a logical conclusion.

¶26

However, with respect to second prayer that FIR be registered against the said police officials, the petitioner is always at liberty to file a criminal complaint and avail of the alternative liberty available in law.

¶27

Disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶29

04.05.2012 mohan

Harikesh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikesh v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakha Singh Vs State of Punjab

Bhagwant Rai Bansal Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kiranjeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sarabjit Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jatinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Deepak Garg Vs Govind Ram