Thursday, April 27, 2017
facebook

google plus
Haryana » Courts

Posted at: Apr 21, 2017, 12:59 AM; last updated: Apr 21, 2017, 12:59 AM (IST)ARREST IN MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE

Probe matter, HC tells CJM

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 20

Taking cognizance of conflicting stands on the arrest of an accused in a matrimonial dispute case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered a judicial probe.

The direction by Justice Rajan Gupta to the Panchkula Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct a fact-finding inquiry came after the police claimed the issuance of notices before summoning the arrested accused to the police station — an assertion vehemently denied by him.

The directions came on a contempt-of-court petition filed by Satvir Singh against Prem Chand and another respondent. As the case came up for hearing, Suresh Kumar Goyal, Secretary to the Haryana Government, was present in the court, pursuant to an order passed by the Bench on a previous date of hearing. An affidavit filed on his behalf was also placed before the Bench.

Counsel for the state pointed out that pursuant to directions given by the apex court in the case of Arnesh Kumar versus Bihar and another respondent, instructions have been issued to the DGP as well as heads of police districts, to comply with the guidelines laid down in the judgment and “not resort to arrest of the accused without satisfying themselves about the need thereof, particularly in matrimonial matters”.

Taking up the matter, Justice Gupta asserted it appeared that the petitioner in the instant case went to the police station on being summoned for offences under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 of the IPC. He was arrested there by respondent Neena Rani, head constable, women’s cell, Panchkula.

“Though stand of the state is that two notices under Section 41-A, CrPC, were issued to the petitioner before summoning him to the police station, it was vehemently denied by the petitioner. According to him, no such notices were received by him or any member of his family.

“In view of the conflicting stands taken before this court, it appears that an inquiry is necessary in this case. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, would conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the matter and submit a report within four weeks,” Justice Gupta concluded.

COMMENTS

All readers are invited to post comments responsibly. Any messages with foul language or inciting hatred will be deleted. Comments with all capital letters will also be deleted. Readers are encouraged to flag the comments they feel are inappropriate.
The views expressed in the Comments section are of the individuals writing the post. The Tribune does not endorse or support the views in these posts in any manner.
Share On