Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satinderjit Singh Thind vs Harjinder Singh And Others on 19 March, 2024
Author: Rajbir Sehrawat
Bench: Rajbir Sehrawat
2024:PHHC: 040190 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 245 COCP No.2595 of 2023 DATE OF DECISION : 19" MARCH, 2024 Satinderjit Singh Thind .... Petitioner Versus Inspector Harjinder Singh & others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT 3K OK OK Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Jasleen Kaur Sidhu, DAG, Punjab with respondents -- in person. OK Ok 3K RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating contempt proceedings against respondents for disobeying the judgment dated 02.07.2014 (Annexure P-14) passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Amesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, along with certain other prayers.
2. Pursuant to the order of previous order the respondents police officials/officers are present in court. The separate replies already filed by the respondents in the Registry are taken on record.
3. It has been pointed out by the respondents that the petitioner was already declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.34 dated 09.02.2021 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station City Kharar, SAS Nagar. Therefore, the police were under a duty to arrest the petitioner and to produce him before the court in the concerned case. Only that RAJ KUMAR 2024.03.21 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment RAJ KUMAR 2024.03.21 14:41 COCP No.2595 of 2023 2024:PHHC: 040190 -2- much was done by the police. Therefore, there was no illegality in his arrest nor there was any violation of any order of the court in which the petitioner might have been granted any bail or interim protection. In any case, if the court comes to a tentative conclusion that the action of the respondents-police was in deviation of any procedure, as such, that was totally under bonafide belief that the police was supposed to discharge their duty. Unconditional apology qua that inadvertent non-compliance, if any, is also submitted.
4. In view of the above, this court does not find any ground to proceed further with the matter. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.
5. The above said respondents, who are present in court, are discharge from the proceedings, as such.
19" MARCH, 2024 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT) 'Taj' JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable: Yes No I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment