Petitioner complained against police officials for demanding illegal gratification and blackmailing. The Court found the complaint incredulous and conflicting as the petitioner claimed officials visited his house while he was absent yet arrested him, with no case registered at the relevant time. Dismissed.
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.
Crl. Misc. No.M-33057 of 2012
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-33057 of 2012 Date of Decision :04.02.2013
Harbans Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab etc.
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK BY ORDER
Present: Ms. Shivali, AAG, Punjab for the State.
Vijender Singh Malik, J.
Harbans Singh, the applicant has made a complaint to Presiding Officer, Special Court, Electricity Theft Case, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala with a copy to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court against Balbir Singh, Head Constable and Baljit Singh, ASI of getting Rs.10,000/- forcibly as illegal gratification by blackmailing and issuing threats of getting case registered. The same was ordered to be taken on judicial side.
Crl. Misc. No.M-33057 of 2012 --2--
Harbans Singh has claimed that a domestic
connection with No. 15/003H was installed in the name of his father S. Sadhu Singh and its electricity bills were duly paid. Charging theft in this connection, Assistant Executive Engineer, Division, Sub Division PSPC Ltd. Thhuliwal, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. wrote a letter to the applicant and directed him to deposit a sum of Rs.41,817/-. In the same, it was further mentioned that a sum of Rs.18,000/- as compounding fees be deposited within 15 days if action was to be averted. Out of fear, the petitioner deposited Rs.41,817/- on 17.07.2012 alongwith a sum of Rs.120/- as reconnection charges. It was prayed by him to the SDO to allow him time to deposit the compounding fees and wanted the same to be postponed till the investigation was conducted. It is claimed that on 19.07.2012 Balbir Singh, HC and Baljit Singh, ASI alongwith other persons entered in his house in his absence and started arresting him and his family members, which was resisted by the respectable persons of the village because limitation of notice has yet not expired. The aforesaid two police officials are then said to have misbehaved with his family members as well as respectable persons of the village and they compelled his family members to
Crl. Misc. No.M-33057 of 2012 --3--
pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- as compounding fees. A sum of Rs.10,000/- alone was paid on that day and it was taken away by them without giving any receipt. It is further claimed by him that the two police officials told that a sum of Rs.8000/- be brought for getting a receipt of Rs.18,000/-. The complainant then went to the office of SDO and wanted to deposit Rs.8000/- but was told to deposit a sum of Rs.18,000/- saying that no amount of Rs.10,000/- has been received in the office. He then talked to the aforesaid police officials, who told that they had taken the amount of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification.
Reply on behalf of the State has been filed to the complaint of Harbans Singh. The allegations of the complainant have been denied. It is claimed that the connection running in the name of S. Sadhu Singh was found to be mis-used. It is claimed that the intimation regarding this came to Police Station PSPCL Patiala only on 23.07.2012 and there was no reason for the above named two police officials to have reached the house of the complainant before that date.
The contents of the complaint present a strange picture. The complainant claims that the two police officials came to his house in his absence. Contrary to it, he says that the above named two police officials started arresting him and his
Crl. Misc. No.M-33057 of 2012 --4--
family members. In this situation, one of the two allegations is false. The remaining narrative of the complaint shows that the complainant was not present when the two police officials visited his house. If it is so, then the complainant had no personal knowledge as to what had happened in his absence. It is not mentioned in the complaint as to who gave the two police officials a sum of Rs.10,000/-.
When a case had been registered only on 23.07.2012 and intimation had not reached the police station earlier to that date, it appears unbelievable that the two police officials would have reached the house of the complainant.
For these reasons, I find no substance in the allegations of the complaint. Therefore, I find no further action in the matter to be required.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
04.02.2013 dinesh
Harbans Singh
State of Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
