Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar vs Wazir Singh And Anr on 11 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048858
COCP-424 & 436-2022 -1-
108
2023:PHHC:048858
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 11.04.2023
1. COCP-424-2022 (O&M)
Suresh Kumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
Wazir Singh and anr.
.. Respondents
2. COCP-436-2022 (O&M)
Ramesh Kumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
Arpit Jain and ors.
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: None for the petitioner (in COCP-424-2022).
Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner (in COCP-436-2022).
Mr. S.S. Kang, Advocate
for respondent No.1 (in COCP-424-2022).
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 13-04-2023 01:55:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048858
COCP-424 & 436-2022 -2-
Mr. Pawan Kumar Longia, DAG, Haryana.
*******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in both these petitions is for initiation of contempt
proceedings against the respondents for violation of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and anr.,
2014 (3) RCR (Crl.) 527.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner Ramesh
Kumar is a practicing lawyer at Sirsa and was nominated as an accused on the
complaint given by Kanchan wife of Jagdish, who is real brother of the
petitioner.
As per allegations in the FIR, marriage of the complainant was
solemnized with accused Jagdish on 20.01.2016 and huge amount was spent,
however, after two months, all the accused started harassing her for not
bringing adequate dowry. In the FIR, details of the incident, when the
complainant was given beatings, are given and she was medico-legally
examined twice at Civil Hospital, Sirsa and twice at Civil Hospital, Dabwali. It
is further stated that despite assurance given by family of the petitioner, they
did not mend their ways and ultimately, the FIR was registered.
The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is
that without following the procedure under Section 41 Cr.P.C., the petitioner
was arrested, therefore, there is violation of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048858
Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra).
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that
subsequent to registration of FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 10.10.2020
and was sent to judicial custody by the Illaqa Magistrate and thereafter, he was
granted regular bail and he has given complaints to the higher authorities,
which are under process.
Separate replies by the respondents have been filed. In the
affidavit filed by respondent No.1 Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, after giving
details of the FIR, it is stated that after registration of the FIR, on 30.05.2020,
accused Jagdish, who is husband of the complainant, was arrested and he made
a disclosure statement that his brother-petitioner Ramesh Kumar and Vikram
used to force the complainant to sleep with them. It is further stated that
challan stands presented under Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC. It is
also stated that one of the accused Bimla was granted anticipatory bail and she
was joined the investigation. It is next stated that the petitioner was arrested on
10.10.2020 i.e. after a period of about 05 months of registration of FIR and
even he made a disclosure statement that since no child was born to Kanchan,
petitioner and her brother asked her to have sexual relations with him in order
to give birth to a child. It is further stated in the affidavit that after arrest of the
petitioner, he was produced before the Illaqa Magistrate and on completion of
the investigation, supplementary challan was presented under Sections 498-A,
406, 323, 354-A, 354-B, 342, 506, 34 IPC against Jagdish and Bimla Devi and
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048858
similarly against co-accused Vikram and petitioner. It is also stated that the
petitioner filed an application before the Illaqa Magistrate for rejecting the
report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., which was declined vide order
dated 17.05.2022, by observing as under: -
"Applicant/accused side is trying to intimidate the Police officials
which is not proper and fair. Accordingly, application in hand is
dismissed."
It is next stated that thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision
petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, which was also
dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2022, by making the following observations:-
"The contents of the application of revisionist/applicant/accused
Ramesh Kumar by itself show that he wants that the investigation
and the case should proceed as per his wishes. Rather, the
revisionist is tarnishing the image of police officials by levelling
such allegations against them without any substance and action
should be taken against him for defaming the police officials. The
application filed by the revisionist is not even maintainable."
In the separate replies filed by respondents No.2 & 3, who were
Investigating Officers of the case, again it is denied that they have not followed
the procedure. It is stated that the petitioner was arrested on 10.10.2020 i.e.
after 05 months of registration of FIR and the investigation was completed and
there was no order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is further
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048858
stated that during the investigation, it has come that when complainant
Kanchan refused to have sexual relations with the petitioner and his brother
Vikram, she was repeatedly given beatings and was harassed. It is also stated
that the petitioner moved as many as 400 complaints against the police officials
to the different authorities and majority of them have been filed.
On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner could not
dispute that for a period of five months i.e. from 02.05.2020, when the FIR was
registered, till 10.10.2020, when the petitioner was arrested, he never applied
for grant of anticipatory bail.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
contents of the FIR as well as investigation, this Court finds that there is no
willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arnesh Kumar's case (supra).
Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
11.04.2023 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:048858
5 of 5
