HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 21 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 34663 of 2011 Petitioner :- Dharambir Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ram Raj Pandey Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. The system of justice can also be misused by mischievous persons in the garb of complaining violation of their fundamental rights is glaring from the facts of this case. This is more unfortunate for the reason that those, who are responsible for administration of justice, and time and again have been addressed as "Officers of the Court" are representing one or the other such party; are instrumental in such abuse of the process of law.
2. The petitioner Dharambir Son of Baley Ram through his son Rakesh came to this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ in the nature of "habeas corpus" to the respondents and in particular respondents No.2 to 4 to produce corpus of petitioner allegedly detained by respondent No.4, before this Court, and to set him at liberty in accordance with law.
3. Initially, when this matter was taken up during vacation on 21st June, 2011, Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, informed the Court that petitioner has been kidnapped and is illegally detained by respondent No.4, and, despite information having been given to the police, and, in particular, Superintendent of Police, Baghpat (hereinafter referred to as "S.P."), no action whatsoever has been taken.
4. Taking the allegations seriously, this Court directed S.P. to appear before this Court on 24th June, 2011 and to inform what action has been taken or inquiry made on the complaint dated 06.06.2011 made by petitioner about keeping bonded labour by respondent No.4.
5. On 24th June, 2011, S.P. appeared and informed that the complaint of the petitioner was registered on 22nd June, 2011 i.e. after the order passed by this Court. He however assured the Court that all out efforts would be made to recover the corpus of the petitioner and shall be produced before this Court, as directed further. Consequently, this matter was directed to be listed on 28th July, 2011 so as to enable respondent No.2 to produce corpus of the petitioner before this Court.
6. On 13th July, 2011, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A.G.A. made a mention that petitioner has been recovered and he sought permission of the Court to produce him before the Court and also stated that he was never kidnapped but had filed a frivolous, bogus petition making false and incorrect allegations.
7. The allegations being serious, the mention was accepted and application along with counter affidavit was called from the office. On information being given by learned A.G.A., the petitioner's counsel also appear. On 13th July, 2011, this Court passed the following order:
"This application has been called from the office on the mention made by Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A.G.A. that petitioner himself made false statement though he himself has absconded.
The corpus of petitioner has been produced by the police.
Put up tomorrow i.e. 14.7.2011 alongwith record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to meet the petitioner, prepare and file his rejoinder affidavit, if any, by tomorrow.
The police shall facilitate the petitioner to swear his affidavit. The petitioner shall be kept in the custody of the police and shall be produced tomorrow."
8. Today, when the matter was taken up, Sri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to para 3 of his affidavit of date stating that in case this Court forms an opinion that son of the petitioner has filed habeas corpus petition wrongly, the petitioner extends unconditional apology and undertakes not to commit any mistake in future, which has occasioned due to ill advice and ignorance of law as the petitioner has no knowledge.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated orally before this Court that he is not disputing whatsoever have been stated in the counter affidavit and only seeks mercy of this Court.
10. The remedy of bringing a cause, praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus is an extra ordinary remedy meant to provide immediate access to the system of justice, who has been illegally detained by the authorities or otherwise. The enforcement of Constitution of India and enshrining therein fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India made the public liberty of a citizen a matter of great importance than anything else. It is one of the reason that writ of habeas corpus is one such exception where it can be issued not only against State but also against private individuals, if it is shown that private individual is illegally holding another person in detention. The writ of habeas corpus sometimes called "the first security of civil liberty". It has been described as "a great constitutional privilege". It provides a prompt and effective remedy against illegal detention. The principal aim is to ensure swift judicial review of alleged unlawful detention on liberty or freedom of the prisoner or detenu. Frequently quoted is the passage from Cox v. Hakes (1890) 15 AC 506 of Lord Halsbury as under:
"For a period extending as far back as our legal history, the writ of habeas corpus has been regarded as one of the most important safeguards of the liberty of the subject. If upon the return to that writ it was adjudged that no legal ground was made to appear justifying detention, the consequence was immediate release from custody. If release was refused, a person detained might make a fresh application to every judge or every Court in turn, and each Court or Judge was bound to consider the question independently and not to be influenced by the previous decisions refusing discharge. If discharge followed, the legality of that discharge could never be brought in question. No writ of error or demurrer was allowed."
11. Scrutton, LJ in R Vs. Secretary of State for Home Affairs; ex parte O'Brien (1923) 2 KB 361, said:
"The law in the country has been very zealous of any infringement of personal liberty. This case is not to be exercised less vigilantly, because the subject whose liberty is in question may not be particularly meritorious. It is indeed one test of belief in principles if you apply them to cases with which you have no sympathy at all. You really believe in freedom of speech, if you are willing to allow it to men whose opinion seem to you wrong and even dangerous; and the subject is entitled only to be deprived of his liberty by due process of law, although that due process if taken will probably send him to prison. A man undoubtedly guilty of murder must yet be released if due forms of law have not been followed in his conviction. It is quite possible, even probable, that the subject in this case is guilty of high treason; he is still entitled only to be deprived of his liberty by due process of law."
12. The writ of habeas corpus, therefore, is a prerogative writ by which, causes and validity of detention of a person are investigated by summary procedure and if the detention is found to be not in accordance with law, the person is entitled to his liberty. The pious objective with which the power of writ of certiorari is available to the higher courts, as and when a complaint is made to this Court about an alleged wrongful detention, the Courts ordinarily take the matter seriously but it is this concern of the Court to the personal liberty of the citizen which has impelled certain scrupulous persons to come to the Court with a different intention and purpose. It becomes most serious when the complaint to the Court is not only false and incorrect but is encouraged by an officer of the Court namely "the Advocate".
13. In this case, the allegation of the petitioner is that he has been kidnapped and illegally detained by respondent No.4.
14. The respondents No.2 and 3 in the counter affidavit sworn by Sri Rajpal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Circle Officer Baraut), District Baghpat states that present writ petition is an outcome of malicious intention and ill will of corpus Dharambir as well as his son Rakesh and their associates. The corpus Dharambir is not abducted by any person, as alleged, and in fact himself was hiding with the advice and help of his son Rakesh and his relatives. On 07th July, 2011 Dharambir was recovered while present in the house of one Ramphal (elder brother of Dharamber) situated in Mohalla Khatik Basti, Shastri Colony, Police Station Chandni Bagh, District Panipat, Haryana. Along with him three other persons namely Satpal, Ramphal and Rajendra were also present and were hatching a conspiracy to continue the fake story of abduction of corpus Dharambir till 28th July, 2011, the next date fixed by this Court in writ petition. The police recovered him after collecting information of his whereabouts and after hurricane efforts of special team constituted by respondent No.2.
15. In paras 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit, respondents No.2 and 3 have said as under:
5. That the contents of paragraphs no.8 and 9 of the petition are admitted only to the extent that the petitioner is a labour. So far as, other contents are concerned, they are incorrect and denied. In reply thereto, it is stated that the petitioner Dharambir has a constructed house and four (4) shops, which are situated on the road and he also possess substantial agricultural land in Village Luhari, police Station Baraut, District Baghpat. However, the petitioner as well as his family also does the labour work of making bricks in Brick Field (int Bhatta) for additional income as appears during the course of investigation of the aforesaid criminal case in question, the petitioner had taken the advance money to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) from the owner of K.B.C. Brick Field namely Jawahar Singh on the pretext of labour work of making bricks. However, after taking advance money of the aforesaid amount and after doing labour work for some days, the petitioner and his above named son Rakesh discontinued with the labour work of making bricks. This eventuality had given the birth to the dispute in between carpus Dharambir and the owner of K.B.C. Brick Field.
8. That infact, the investigation of present criminal case in question was started in pursuance to the First Information Report dated 22-06-2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 453 of 2011 under section 147, 342, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat. A copy of the First Information Report dated 22-06-2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 453 of 2011 under sections 147, 343, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i) (x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-2 to this Counter Affidavit.
9. That after registration of the First information Report, the investigation was started and the statement of wife of present petitioner namely Smt. Matri was recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. and was entered into the case diary in Parcha No. 1 dated 23-06-2011. A copy of the statement of wife of present petitioner namely Smt. Matri recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. and entered into the case diary in Parcha No. 1 dated 23.06.2011 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-3 to this Counter Affidavit.
The statement of elder son of petitioner Dharambir namely Vijendra alias Kaala was also recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. and on the basis of statement of abovenamed persons, the offence under section 364 of I.P.C. was added and the offence under section 3(I) (X) of SC/ST Act was replaced by the offence under section 3(2) 5 of SC/St Act.
10. That on 23.06.2011, for recovery of present petitioner Dharambir, the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat constituted a Team of Police Personnel, having total Twenty Eight (28) members (One Deputy Superintendent of Police, One Inspector, Nine Sub-Inspectors, One Head Constable and Sixteen Constables, vide order dated 23.06.2011. The said team of Police personnel was strictly instructed to take make all possible efforts for safe recovery of corpus Dharambir. They were also instructed to publish the Photographs and Pamphlets of corpus Dharambir by using print media and news channels.
12. That from the inquiry conducted by the deponent / Circle Officer-Baraut, District Baghpat, upto 22.06.2011 and from the investigation of aforesaid criminal case in question, the above stated police Team was having suspicion with regard to the alleged story of abduction of present petitioner Dharambir. As such, beside aforesaid, the steps for surveillance of Mobile Phones of abovenamed Rakesh (son of the present petitioner Dharambir and representative of corpus in the present petition) as well as his relatives and the Advocate namely Shri Manish, who was giving consultation to the abovenamed Rakesh and Ramphal (Elder brother of petitioner Dharambir).
13. That from the surveillance of Mobile Phones, it came into picture that the petitioner Dharambir, his son Rakesh and his other relatives have conspired in consultation with the abovenamed Advocate Shri Manish and have developed the false story of abduction and have preferred the abovenoted Habeas Corpus Petition before this Hon'ble Court. All this was done by the abovenamed persons, in order to make pressure over the owner of K.B.C. Brick Field and also to make pressure over the Police Authority of District Baghpat, so that they may absolved their liability of aforesaid amout of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only).
14. That as aforesaid on 07.07.2011, the present petitioner Dharambir was recovered by the Police Team from District Baghpat in the aforesaid manner. Thereafter, his medical examination was conducted at C.H.C. Baraut, District Baghpat and thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded his statement Under section 161 of Cr.P.C. and then, he was produced before the learned court below for recording his statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C., the gist thereof was entered into the case diary in Parcha No. 7-A dated 08.07.2011. A copy of the Medical Examination Report of the Petitioner Dharambir and the Parcha No. 7-A dated 08.07.2011 containing the gist of statement of petitioner Dharambir (corpus) under section 164 of Cr.P.C. are being filed respectively herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA-4 and CA-5 to this courter affidavit.
15. That on 09.07.2011, the Investigating Officer summoned one of the said Team member namely Vijendra Singh Rawat, who is Incharge of Surveillance Cell, District Baghpat and enquired about the surveillance of Mobile Phones as well as the recording of Mobile conversations. The Investigating Officer himself heard the recording of Mobile conversations and entered the gist of Mobile Conversations in the case diary in Parcha No. 8 dated 09.07.2011 containing the gist of Mobile Conversations recorded by the Surveillance Cell, District Baghpat is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-6 to this Counter Affidavit It is pertinent to mention herein that the permission for surveillance of Mobile Phone and recording of Mobile Conversations were duly obtained by the said Incharge, Surveillance Cell, District Baghpat from the concerned authority.
16. That the perusal of statement of present petitioner/corpus Dharambir recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as the Mobile Conversations recorded by the Surveillance Cell, District Baghpat goes to show that the present petitioner Dharambir had flew away on 30.05.2011 during alleged scuffle in between him and owner of K.B.C. Brick Field and was hiding himself willfully in conspiracy with his son Rakesh, elder brother Ramphal and other relatives as well as the abovenamed Advocate Shri Manish. On the other hand, the filing and Pairvi of the abovenoted Habeas Corpus Petition was done by abovenamed Rakesh with full intention to play with this Hon'ble Court as well as Police Authorities of District Baghpat on the basis of his false story of abduction of present petitioner Dharambir. All this was done with the aforesaid motive of absolving liability of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees One Lac Only) and for other reasons also, which are under investigation."
16. The wife of Dharambir, whose statement was recorded on 23rd June, 2011, though continued to allege that Dharambir was kidnapped at the instance of respondent No.4 illegally but Dharambir himself has stated in his statement dated 8th July, 2011 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as under:
^^30-06-2011 dks jfoUnj] dYyw] jes'k us eq>s esjs ?kj esa mBkdj eq>s ekjuk 'kq: dj fn;k ekjrs&ekjrs vius ?kj esa ys x;s mUgksaus eq>s xk<+h esa fxjk fn;k ekSdk ns[kdj eSa fudy Hkkxk [ksrks[ksr gksrk gqvk iwjh jkr [ksr esa jgk fQj eSa rhljs fnu viuh cqvk ds ?kj flukSyh igqapk eq>s esjk yM+dk jkds'k flukSyh ysdj x;k Fkk cqvk ds ?kj esa nks jkr jgk ogka ls [krkSyh fjLrsnkjh esa pyk x;k Fkk nks jkr ogka jgdj 15 fnu cq<+huk xkao esa viuh ethZ ls fjLrsnkfj;ksa esa jgk gwWaA esjs yM+ads jkds'k vkSj esjh cqvk ds yM+ds vkSj odhy ls feydj vigj.k dk eqdnek fy[kok fn;k esjs yM+ds jkds'k o esjh cqvk ds yM+ds fjf"kiky us eq>s dgk fd rqe Nqis jguk eSa ckxir vkus ds fy, ikuhir LVs'ku ij cSBk Fkk rHkh iqfyl us eq>s cjken dj fy;kA lqudj rLnhd fd;k fu'kkuh vaxwBk /keZohj flag 08-07-11 vig`r Jh /keZohj tks U;k;ky; ifjlj ds ikl [kM+k gqvk gSA vig`r /keZohj ls esjs }kjk iqu% iwNrkN dh xbZ rks crk;k fd lkgc jfoUnj] dYyw] jes'k us eq>s fnukad 30-05-11 dks eq>s ?kj ls mBk dj eq>s ekjihV dh x;h FkhA ijUrq eSaus Hkwyo'k] xyrh o'k ek0 U;k;ky; ds le{k vHkh fn;s x;s c;kuksa esa fnukad 30-05-11 ds ctk; 30-06-11 c;kuksa esa crk fn;k Fkk tcfd ;g lgh ÄVuk 30-05-11 dh gh gSA**
17. The investigating officer in his case diary Parcha No.8 dated 9th July, 2011 has given the details as to how and in what manner the petitioner and his son were in continuous contact of his counsel Sri Manish. He has also reproduced the recorded mobile phone conversation, which reads as under:
vig`r /keZohj }kjk vius iq= jkds'k ¼oknh½ ls rFkk vius HkkbZ jkeQy vkfn fjLrsnkjksa ls vigj.k dk >wBk ukVd cukdj fNis jgus rFkk odhy euh"k vkfn ds Qksu ij lykg ysdj vigj.k dk ukVd dj fjiksVZ fy[kkus ds vkfn ds rF;ksa dh okRkkZ ,d nwljs ls dh xbZ gSA ftldk fooj.k fuEuor gSA Ekksckby Qksu fjdkfMZxokrkZ%& dkyj dkYM fnukad le;
lriky odhy euh"k 26-06-2011 14-54 cts lriky us vius eksckby Qksu ua0 9557927528 ls euh"k odhy ls eksckby Qksu ua0 9058104621 ij 507 lsdsUM ckrs dh x;h blh uEcj ij fjf"kiky us odhy euh"k dks crk;k fd mlus iwNus ij lc dqN lgh ckr crk nh gSA odhy us dgk fd rqe lgh er crkvksa tks ,d ckj >wB cksy pqds gks mlh ij vM+s jgks vkSj dIrku dks viuh ukSdjh gh igys cpk ys gkbZdksVZ bykgkckn esa 28-07-2011 dh rkjh[k nh gSA rc rd vig`r /keZohj dks fNik;s j[kukA dkyj dkYM fnukad le;
jkds'k jkeQy 05-07-2011 07-32 ,0,e0 jkds'k us vius rkm jkeQy ls eksckby Qksu ua0 8053055709 ij ckrs dh rFkk crk;k fd lriky ls lykg djds ;g r; dj ysa fd vkxs dSls djuk gSA vkSj crk;k fd ¼jkds'k½ bl le; fgyokM+h xkao esa gS jkeQy us mldks dgk fd rqe cp ds jguk Nkuchu rxM+h py jgh gSA vkxs ;g Hkh dgk fd og 12&01 cts ds ckn og lriky dh nqdku ij vk;sxk blh ckr ij elojk djsxs fd vkxs D;k djuk gSA 8979260939 dkyj dkYM fnukad le;
jkds'k odhy euh"k 05-07-2011 14-19 cts jkds'k }kjk fnukad 05-07-2011 dks vius odhy euh"k ls Qksu ua0 9058104621 ij ckrs dh rFkk odhy us mls crk;k fd /keZohj bl le; Qksu ua0 9816076546 okys vkneh ds ikl gSA esjh bl Qksu ua0 ij ml vkneh ls ckrs gqbZ gSA /keZohj ¼vig`r½ ckgj Fkk blfy, mlls ckrs ugha gks ldh eSaus mls crk fn;k gS fd /keZohj ls esjh ckrsa djk nsa odhy us jkds'k ¼oknh½ dks dgk fd vHkh bl uEcj ij ckr djds /keZohj ls ckr djk nksA dkyj dkYM fnukad le;
jkds'k ¼oknh½ /keZohj¼vig`r½ 05-07-2011 14-59 cts 8979260939 jkds'k }kjk lksyu fgekpy izns'k fLFkr vius fj'rsnkj ekyrh mQZ ekyrk iRuh losZ'k fuoklh ekykx<+ lksyu ds Qksu ua0 9816076546 ij Qksu dj ogkWa jg jgs vius firk ¼vig`r½ /keZohj dks Qksu djds mlls ckrs djrs gq, dgk fd rqe bl fle dks cUn djds u;k fle ys ysuk rFkk dgk fd fnukad 28-07-2011 gkbZdksVZ bykgkckn dh rkjh[k rd [kqn dks ejk gqvk eku yks vc fdlh dks dksbZ Qksu er djuk jkds'k us bl fnu eksckby Qksu ua- 8979260939 ls ckrs dh gSA dkyj dkYM fnukad le;
jkds'k ¼oknh½ /keZohj¼vig`r½ 05-07-2011 21-09 cts 9816076546 jkds'k us /keZohj firk ls dgk fd odhy ls ckrs gqbZ gSa odhy dk dguk gS fd ;w0ih0 dh iqfyl dk dksbZ fo'okl ugha gS fnYyh esa mldh lsfVax gS fnYyh esa rsjh cjkenxh djkds ogh rsjk c;ku ntZ djk nsaxsA dkyj dkYM fnukad le;
jkds'k ¼oknh½ /keZohj¼vig`r½ 05-07-2011 21-20 cts 9816076546 jkds'k us /keZohj firk dks Qksu djds jkeQy rkm ds uEcj ekxs rks /keZohj us jkeQy ds nks eksckby ua0 8053055709 o 9050690908 uksV djk;s mlds ckn vthr fuoklh xzke gsyokM+h ftlds ;gka jkds'k Bgjk gqvk gS vthr tks jkds'k oknh dk nksLr gSA vthr us igys ekyrh ls okrkZ dh ekyrh us crk;k fd QqQk /keZohj ¼vig`r½ ;gh ij gSA fQj vthr us /keZohj ls ckrs dh vkSj crk;k fd odhy ij T;knk fo'okl er djuk esjk tkuus okyk ,d iqfylokyk gS ftlls eSaus bl ekeys esa elojk fd;k FkkA /keZohj us crk;k fd og jkr dks 2&3 cts ;gka ls py nsxk vkSj 12&1 cts igqWap dj jkds'k ds uEcj ij ckr dj ysxkA u;k fle o u;k eksckby ywaxk vthr us /keZohj ls ;g Hkh crk;k fd iqfyl okys us mls crk;k Fkk fd rqeus viuk vigj.k fn[kk j[kk gS vxj rqe [kqn gh lkeus vkdj c;ku nksxs rks vigj.k >wBk gks tk;sxkA dkyj dkYM fnukad le;
jkds'k ¼oknh½ jkeQy¼rkm½ 06-07-2011 7-20,0,e0 ua0 mijksDr jkds'k us jkeQy ds eksckby ua0 8053055709 ij ckrs dh fd xkao esa x;s Fks rks odhy ls feys Fks rFkk jkeQy us jkds'k dks crk;k fd xkao esa gkykr Bhd ugha gSA rw Hkh fgyokM+h ls pyk vk ikuhir rw vk tkA vkSj xkao ls dkysgj o /keZohj dk ifjokj Hkh ckxir vk;k FkkA dkyj dkYM fnukad le;
jkds'k ¼oknh½ losZ'k¼fj'rsnkj½ 06-07-2011 7-30 ,0,e0 ua0 mijksDr jkds'k us vius fj'rsnkj losZ'k ls ftlds ;gka /keZohj ¼vig`r½ fNik gSA ls eksckby Qksu ua0 9816076546 ij ckrs dh iwNk fd odhy ;k jkeQy rkm dk Qksu vk;k FkkA D;k losZ'k us dgk fd dy 'kke ls ugha vk;k rFkk ;g Hkh dgk fd /keZohj vkfn ;gka ls 7&8 cts fudy ysxk jkds'k us losZ'k dks dgk fd mudks vkus er nsuk tc rd gks lds ogha ij jksds j[kks ;k dgha fdlh lqjf{kr txg ij fdjk;s ij dejk fnyk nks vkSj tYnh ls igqapdj /keZohj ls esjh ckrs djk nsukA dgh og /keZohj ogkWa ls fudy u tk;s vkSj rkm jkeQy ls Hkh ckrs djk nsuk eSa Hkh mls le>k nwaxk fd og fNidj jgs dgha u fudysA dkyj dkYM fnukad le;
jkds'k ¼oknh½ euh"k¼odhy½ 06-07-2011 7-52 ,-,e-
ua0 mijksDr jkds'k us vius euh"k odhy ls mlds eksckby Qksu ua0 9058104621 ij ckrs dh iwNk fd vkxs dSls gksxk dgh ge rks vUnj cUn ugha gks tk;saxs odhy us crkk fd rqEgkjk dqN Hkh ugha gksxk rqe cki csVk vius c;kuksa ls er iyVuk jkds'k us ;g Hkh dgk fd ;g yksx vUnj tsy D;ksa ugha tk jgs gSA odhy us dgk fd iqfyl ryk'k dj jgh gS tSls gh feysxs og vUnj gks tk;sxs jkds'k us odhy ls ;g Hkh dgk fd tc geus vigj.k fn[kk j[kk gS rks mlds c;ku dSls gks tk;saxsA odhy us dgk fd vigj.k djus okys NksM+ Hkh rks nsrs gSaA eSa rks rq>s lykg gh ns ldrk gwWaA jkds'k us odhy ls iSls ds ekeyksa esa dgk fd tSls rqe dgksxs oSlh gh gks tk;sxkA**
18. The above statement and what has been found by the investigating officer in the case in hand reflects on a serious conspiracy to malign not only the respondents but also to illegally put the judicial system into motion on a cause which actually did not exist and thereby the entire system has been misused by the petitioner.
19. Whatever has been stated in the counter affidavit and its enclosures have not been disputed by the petitioner though opportunity was given to the petitioner to file its reply but he has filed a simple affidavit today throwing him to the mercy of the Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that false allegations made by the petitioner has not only put in motion the law enforcement machinery of the entire District to react in a matter where there was no reason for them to unnecessarily persuade the petitioner who was never abducted. The date on which the petitioner filed this writ petition, his relative, associates, the deponent of the affidavit, they all knew this fact that whatever they are writing or stating is false. Neither there is any kidnapping nor any illegal detention. The petitioner has not only approached this Court with unclean hands, but has been successful to some extent in misusing the process of law and harassment of the responsible officers of the State, who could have utilized their valuable time for other productive work. In the garb of mercy, this Court cannot leave the deliberate and intentional attempt on the part of a person(s) to misled not only this Court but also to abuse the entire process of judicial system making a mockery of process which is basically meant for upholding majesty of the fundamental right of personal life and liberty. Not only the petitioner is, therefore, is guilty of playing fraud upon this Court but here is a fit case where this Court should pass an order which may discourage others also to resort for a similar/same adventure in future.
20. This Court therefore direct as under:
(i) The Registrar General is directed to file a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against Rakesh S/o Dharambir, R/o Village Luhari, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat for filing a false affidavit before this Court.
(ii)The petitioner is guilty of not only by filing a false affidavit before this Hon'ble Court but also a bogus and frivolous writ petition and thereby creating obstruction in administration of justice/ This amounts to criminal contempt of this Court. Therefore, for initiating proceedings of criminal contempt against Dharambir S/o Baley Ram and his son Rakesh S/o Dharambir R/o Village Luhari, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat, the matter may be placed before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
(iii) The respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner and others under all provisions of IPC etc. as they find to have contravened by the petitioner, his son and others and proceed accordingly.
(iv) Sri Manish, Advocate of the petitioner, be issued notice as to why the matter may not be referred to the Bar Council for his alleged professional misconduct.
21. Subject to above directions and only to the extent, as may be necessary for compliance of the aforesaid direction, this matter shall be listed before this Court.
22. With the above directions and subject thereto, this writ petition of habeas corpus is dismissed with cost quantified to Rs.5 lacs, which shall be paid by the petitioner within two months to the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 by depositing the amount in the Treasury of District Bhagpat, failing which it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the Collector, Baghpat suo motu without any further reference to this Court.
Order Date :- 14.7.2011 KA