Court-Appointed Warrant Officer Assaulted By Punjab Police: High Court Says Lawlessness Needs To Be Curbed With Iron Hand, Seeks DGPs Response

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has sought response of Punjab's DGP on allegations of assaulting a warrant officer by police officials. The warrant officer was appointed by the Court to conduct search in a habeas corpus plea.

Perusing the report submitted by the warrant officer, Justice NS Shekhawat noted that it is "apparent  from the report that certain police officials, who were present there, had misbehaved and assaulted the Warrant Officer, appointed by this Court."

"In fact such inhumane, degrading and criminal conduct of the police officers cannot be taken lightly and this kind of lawlessness needs to be curbed with an iron hand. A Warrant Officer, appointed by this Court, was assaulted by not only the commandos of Special Operation Group but also by a person, who claimed that he was Inspector Shiv Kumar. Even this conduct not only constitutes a criminal offence as the officer appointed by this Court was not allowed to perform his official duties and was assaulted, but is also contemptuous," the Court opined.

These observations came in response to an email which was treated as a habeas corpus plea filed by a man alleging that his family members were illegally detained by certain officials claiming to be Punjab Police.

Considering the allegations, the Court appointed Manoj Kashyap as a warrant officer to conduct search at all places mentioned in the plea.

The Warrant Officer submitted that when he reached Mohali's Special Cell to conduct search he was stopped be a constable and who said that there is no police official inside the office.

Even after telling the constable that Kashyap is a court officer and required to search the alleged detenues in the police station premises the constable did not allow him to enter and asked to contact the SSP, he told the Court.

However, the SSP did not respond to his call. Thereafter, a person entered the Special Cell claiming to be an Inspector, shouted at him to leave, and was not allowed to enter.

Kashyap stated that he also went to the Police Station, Mataur to search for the alleged detenues where a police official informed that no such persons were arrested.

Considering the submissions, the Court said that, such inhumane, degrading and criminal conduct of the police officers cannot be taken lightly and this kind of lawlessness needed to be curbed with an iron hand.

While issuing notice to the Punjab Government, the Court sought reply by way of personal affidavit of the Director General of Police.

The Court directed to answer the following details in the affidavit:

(I) Name of the official(s), who heads the Special Cell, Punjab Police, Mataur, which is situated at old Police Station Premises, Mataur (Mohali);

(II) Names and designations of all the officials, who are posted at Special Cell and were on duty at that time when the Warrant Officer appointed by this Court had visited the Special Cell;

(III) Names and designation of hte officials, who had met the Warrant Officer outside and inside the Special Cell;

(IV) Whether any FIR has been registered in the present case? If yes, annex a copy of the FIR;

(V) Whether any action has been taken against all the police officials, who have been found guilty in the present case?

(VI) Whether any disciplinary action has been taken/proposed to be taken against the erring police official(s);

(VII) Name of the official, who did not cooperate from the SSP Office, Mohali and hte action taken against such official?

The Court further directed that since the officials of SSP, Mohali did not cooperate with the Warrant Officer his role was to be enquired, and the Director General of Police was directed to depute an officer of the Rank of Inspector General of Police, who shall look into the matter.

In case the police finds that cognizable offence has been committed by any of the police officers, they shall be at liberty to join  Warrant Officer appointed by this Court in the present case by issuing a notice in writing to him during investigation, it added.

While listing the matter for April 01, the Court directed the SSP to produce all the persons mentioned by the petitioner involved in the alleged illegal detention.

Title: Dharmender Singh v. State