Disposed

Bharat Ram @ Bharat Lal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 May 2012CWP/1097/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs for illegal detention alleging collusion between respondents and a court official in issuing non-bailable warrants despite bail. The Court declined to adjudicate the collusion allegation as it requires determinative material available only in civil proceedings, leaving the seeker to approach the Civil Court for damages.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to approach Civil Court for grant of damages.

Bharat Ram @ Bharat Lal Vs State of Haryana… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P.No.1097 of 2010(O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P.No.1097 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision : 04.05.2012

¶4

Bharat Ram @ Bharat Lal

¶5

....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. AG, Haryana Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for respondent no.5. Mr. R.S.Hooda, Advocate for respondents no. 7 and 8

¶11

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶12

The petitioner has filed the instant petition with a prayer that he be adequately compensated to the extent of Rs. 20 lakhs for being illegally confined by the respondent no.6 in collusion with respondent nos. 7 and 8 who influenced the official of the Court namely Ahlmad attached to the Court of Shashi Bala Chauhan at the relevant time by un-authorisedly getting issued non-bailable warrants of arrest even though the petitioner had been released on bail.

¶13

The petitioner contends with reference to Annexure P-5 that he appeared before the Court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to a complaint having been preferred by the complainants - respondents no. 7-8 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was released on bail

¶14

C.W.P.No.1097 of 2010(O&M) 2

¶15

subject to his furnishing bail bonds which were duly produced and accepted by the Court. The bail having been granted on 16.12.2008 the matter was adjourned to 16.4.2009 but before this on 10.4.2009 nonbailable warrants were got issued by the said respondents in collusion with officials of the Court directing SHO to execute the same which resulted in his arrest and subsequent production before the Court on 13.4.2009 on which date he was again released on bail. The petitioner thus alleges that he having been detained unnecessarily is entitled to compensation for illegal detention at the hands of the respondent no.6 and at the behest of respondents no. 7 and 8.

¶16

On 16.4.2009 learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class before whom the proceedings were pending noticed the aberration in the proceedings. It was observed by the learned Court that the Ahlmad Smt. Saroj who had been newly appointed to the post had committed the blunder by not cancelling the warrants of arrest which had been executed earlier. Subsequent proceedings reveal that official of the Court has been proceeded against by issuing show cause notice to him for dereliction of duty.

¶17

From the facts as narrated above, there is no doubt that the petitioner was unduly put to harassment. However, to say that it was at the behest of respondent no.7 and 8 with the collusion of the official of the Court and to accept the same in proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India would be an extreme fallacy as collusion and deliberate overt act of the respondents no. 7 and 8 to get the petitioner arrested would be matters of evidence which this Court is not in a position to appreciate in the present proceedings. The order of the learned Court

¶18

C.W.P.No.1097 of 2010(O&M) 3

¶19

below dated 16.4.2009 as noticed above and the relevant material on file suggest that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the concerned official of the Court therefore in view of this also it is extremely difficult to comment as to whether it was an inadvertent lapse on the part of the official or there was collusion between the few persons as alleged by the petitioner. At this stage even to comment upon the situation could prejudicially affect the proceedings initiated against the delinquent official and it would result in pre-judging the issue. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that these are matters which should be dealt with by the Civil Court in the eventuality of any such proceedings initiated before it as it raises serious questions which can be answered only on the basis of determinative material which may come on record during such such proceedings.

¶20

Hence, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail himself of remedy of approaching Civil Court with the prayer for grant of damages.

¶21

May 4, 2012 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge

Bharat Ram @ Bharat Lal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Ram @ Bharat Lal v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Vishnu Dev Shukla Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sanjiv Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rakesh Sharma Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Amanpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Singh Dhillon Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate

Sandeep Sachdev and 11 Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner and Principal Secy. & Ors.