Act on complaints or pay costs: Punjab and Haryana High Court warning to police

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, May 22

Flooded with petitions alleging police inaction, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that blind-eye, deaf-ear, tactic adopted by the cops while taking up complaints will not be tolerated and any laxity on the investigating agency’s part would entail the imposition of costs.

Justice Harkesh Manuja of the high court also imposed Rs 10, 000 costs on a station house officer for turning a blind eye to a complaint.

The amount might appear nominal at the first glance, but the court’s decision is significant as the imposition of costs is expected to serve as a crucial deterrent against delays in addressing the citizen’s grievances.

The ruling by Justice Manuja came on a petition filed by Avtar Singh. He was, among other things, seeking the issuance of direction to Punjab and others respondents to constitute a special investigation team under the supervision of “higher officials” to conduct prompt, extensive, fair and impartial investigation against the accused on his complaint.

Justice Manuja asserted a cumulative analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case would show that the station house officer concerned did not apparently perform his statutory duty. Instead of registering an FIR under the relevant provisions of law, a “kalandra” or a notice under Section 107 of the CrPC was issued, compelling the petitioner to approach the high court for the redressal of his grievance. A “Kalandra” under the law is issued against a person, who may disturb public peace or tranquility.

As the matter came up for hearing before Justice Manuja, the State counsel on instructions from the police official concerned submitted that an FIR was registered on May 11 at a police station in Dera Bassi against the “perpetrators” after reconsidering the matter.

The Bench was also told that the investigation in the matter was in progress.

Justice Manuja asserted the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition stood substantially redressed. “However, for keeping blind eyes and deaf ears to the complaint made by the petitioner, thereby forcing him to file present petition and burdening this court for unnecessary litigation, respondent-SHO concerned –– the incumbent who was in office at the time when the first complaint was moved by the petitioner –– is saddled with costs of Rs.10,000…”

For the purpose of depositing the amount, Justice Manuja set a week’s deadline, while making it clear that the salary of the officer concerned would remain attached till the cost was deposited in case of delay.