Supreme Court Stays HC Order To Punjab Police To Probe Alleged Illegalities In Chandigarh Police's Arrest Of Dentist
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a plea by the union territory of Chandigarh against Punjab and Haryana High Court’s direction to the Punjab police to probe allegations against Chandigarh police of illegalities in the arrest of a city dentist last year. A division bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli also stayed the state high court's order with Justice...
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a plea by the union territory of Chandigarh against Punjab and Haryana High Court’s direction to the Punjab police to probe allegations against Chandigarh police of illegalities in the arrest of a city dentist last year.
A division bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli also stayed the state high court's order with Justice Bopanna explaining, “This case will need to be considered at length. That is why we are issuing a stay now.”
The Court also directed the Chandigarh police to preserve the records relating to the case.
Additional Solicitor-General for India, KM Nataraj, asked, “How can the high court, while hearing an anticipatory bail plea, direct a special investigation team to be constituted?” “This is not at all permissible, and is totally without jurisdiction,” the top law officer added.
On the other hand, appearing for the accused, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that this was one of the worst cases of police excesses that he had encountered. Bhushan explained that the accused, one Mohit Dhawan, a Chandigarh-based dentist, had filed a suit for the recovery of some outstanding dues owed to him by a woman from Nairobi on account of her treatment. On account of this, Bhushan claimed, Dhawan incurred the wrath of a senior police officer, who was also a special director with the Central Bureau of Investigation and he was successively implicated in a series of complaints about improper treatment allegedly provided by him. Bhushan said
“This case shows very starkly what happens to a citizen of this country if he incurs the wrath of a senior police officer. Three separate complaints were filed against him. In two of them, he managed to get anticipatory bail. In the third one, he was asked to be present before a magistrate. But on the day of the hearing, he was abducted by a team from Chandigarh crime branch, while another team marked their appearance in court. The high court order shows that the police filed contradictory affidavits, and destroyed, or failed to produce the CCTV footage. The order also shows that the CCTV records and call data records have not been produced despite the passage of one year. With the lapse of time, all the evidence will disappear. Even the high court has observed this. I have never come across a more gross case of abuse of power by the police.”
The bench was however not swayed to decline stay on the High Court order. However, to allay Bhushan's apprehensions with respect to the tampering of evidence, the bench ordered the Chandigarh administration to retain all existing records, as also CCTV footage and electronic records. The matter will be listed after five weeks, the bench further pronounced.
Background
Under challenge is an order of a single judge bench earlier in March requesting the Punjab police chief to constitute a special investigation team to examine the alleged ‘abduction’ of the accused by UT police personnel. The operative portion of the order passed by Justice Harkesh Manuja read:
“In the facts of the present case, being an independent and impartial authority, the Director-General of Police (DGP), Punjab is requested to constitute a special Investigation team (SIT) within a period of one week from today, headed by an officer, not below the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), assisted by some technical experts in telecom domain, to investigate in the matter and submit its final report to the court concerned.”
This directive was issued while hearing an anticipatory bail application moved Dhawan who was booked in September 2020 for allegedly cheating a Kenyan woman by providing her ‘substandard’ dental implants. Dhawan had alleged that he was being pressurised into reaching a compromise with respect to two other first information reports and was being prevented by police officials from joining an investigation before an illaqa magistrate in Chandigarh. The prosecution, however, levelled a counter-allegation that Dhawan was not cooperating with the investigation. The high court had directed the accused to appear before the magistrate but four police officials of the city crime branch, Dhawan claimed, abducted him on the morning of the first hearing to prevent him from presenting himself in court. While the first team was deployed to abduct him, the accused alleged, a second team of three police officers marked themselves present before the illaqa magistrate. Before the high court, an additional public prosecutor, however, claimed that Dhawan was arrested in connection with another FIR and as such, his petition for anticipatory bail had become infructuous.
The judge noted with dismay that the respondents had on several occasions failed to provide the information mentioned in their affidavits, filed ‘misleading’ affidavits, and even furnished information that had inconsistencies. To illustrate, the court recorded that an attempt was made by police to withhold the video surveillance footage from the cameras belonging to the police department as well as the Chandigarh district bar association. The judge further noted that it appeared that there had been efforts to delay and divert the proceedings so that the desired information could not be obtained from the telecom companies, which stored relevant data of only two years. Overall, the court recorded several reasons in the order to establish why a probe by an SIT outside Chandigarh was necessary. It observed that this case had the potential to shake the confidence of the common man in the administration of justice. If the allegations made by the accused were found to be true, the judge wrote, the conduct of the police officials would amount to subverting the course of justice by causing interference in the implementation of orders passed by the courts.
The court further observed, “It is said that Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion, which augers well in the present case. Statutory authorities, which are entrusted and involved with the administration of justice being above board, have to stand on a higher pedestal with sterling integrity so as to dispel any doubt regarding their conduct. In addition to this, the rights of the petitioner for fair investigation as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, strengthens the requirement of a free, fair, independent and impartial investigation.”
Case Title
Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Mohit Dhawan | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3405 of 2023