1995 (5) TMI 273 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Illegal detention of Dhananjay Sharma and Sushil Kumar by Haryana Police.
2. False affidavits and statements by police officers.
3. Contempt of Court by police officers.
4. Responsibility and conduct of higher officials.
5. Compensation for illegal detention.

Summary:

1. Illegal Detention of Dhananjay Sharma and Sushil Kumar:
On 17.1.1994, a writ of habeas corpus was filed for the release of Dhananjay Sharma from the alleged illegal custody of Haryana Police. The petition claimed that Sharma and his driver, Sushil Kumar, were waylaid by Haryana Police on 15.1.1994 and detained until 17.1.1994. The Supreme Court directed the respondents to produce the detainees and explain the circumstances of their detention.

2. False Affidavits and Statements by Police Officers:
Respondents 3 to 5 (Haryana Police officials) denied the allegations of illegal detention in their affidavits. However, the CBI investigation revealed that these affidavits were false. The CBI report confirmed that Sharma and Kumar were indeed detained by Haryana Police, contradicting the police officers' statements and affidavits.

3. Contempt of Court by Police Officers:
The Supreme Court found respondents 3 to 5 guilty of filing false affidavits and making false statements, amounting to contempt of court. The court emphasized that such actions obstruct the administration of justice and undermine public confidence in the judicial system. The police officials' conduct was deemed reprehensible and condemnable.

4. Responsibility and Conduct of Higher Officials:
Respondents 1 and 2 (higher officials) were criticized for their casual approach and failure to file affidavits as directed by the court. Although they were not directly involved in the illegal detention, their lack of diligence and failure to comply with court orders were noted. The court accepted their apologies but cautioned them to act more responsibly in the future.

5. Compensation for Illegal Detention:
Despite the illegal detention, the court did not award compensation to Dhananjay Sharma and Sushil Kumar due to their own misconduct. Sharma exaggerated the incident, and Kumar initially made false statements under pressure from the police. The court held that their actions disentitled them from receiving compensation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court sentenced respondent No. 3 to two months of simple imprisonment and respondents 4 and 5 to three months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1500 each for contempt of court. The court discharged the rule against respondents 6 and 7, finding no evidence of their involvement in the false affidavits or tutoring of Sushil Kumar. The apologies of respondents 1 and 2 were accepted, and the rule against them was discharged. The court emphasized the need to maintain the purity of the judicial process and the importance of truthful affidavits and statements in court proceedings.