9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ari alleged in her complaint that she was married with the petitioner Sh. Amit Bhandari on 27th June, 2009 at Delhi. Her husband is based in Pune working in a lawyer's company. Soon after marriage, her mother-in-law and her husband started taunting and abusing her and her parents over the quality of things provided by them in the marriage. Her mother-in-law took away all the jewellery including Mangal Sutra. She was continuously subjected to cruelty on account of dowry. On the demand of her husband, her father has deposited Rs. 1 lac in the account of her husband but the cruelty continued. On 28th August, 2009, her husband abused her and gave her beatings for not bringing enough and quality things from her parents. As such, the FIR was registered. 2. The punitive action against the respondent is sought basically on the ground that in pursuance to the complaint lodged by wife of the petitioner Deeksha Bhandari, FIR was registered against the petitioner. He had filed an application for anticipatory bail wherein direction was given to serve seven days notice of pre-arrest. However, without serving pre-arrest notice, respondents No. 2 3 visited the house of parents of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner appeared in person before learned MM, Rohini Court, Delhi on 4th June, 2011. However, in gross violation of the Court order dated 12th May, 2010, whereby the respondents were directed to serve seven days' pre-arrest notice, the petitioner was arrested. Permission of arrest was taken from ACP which is in gross violation of standing order 330 of 2007 issued by the Commissioner of Police. The court hearing was over by 11:30 a.m. and immediately thereafter the respondents No. 2 3 arrested the petitioner from the Court premises but he was detained at police station till 5:00 pm and was not produced before the learned Magistrate which clearly shows the malicious intention so that petitioner could not seek bail on the same day. Respondent No. 2 took the petitioner for medical examination under the instructions of respondent No. 3, however, the medical examiner did not record the medical history of the petitioner and copy of the report was also not handed over to the petitioner, which is in violation of the guidelines given by Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal. The petitioner was not informed about the charges for which he was being arrested, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The IO again visited the house of petitioner on next day, i.e., 18.06.2010 along with complainant and with assistance of local Police of Pune but could not find the petitioner. Search for recovery of Istridhan was also conducted at the house but complainant could not find her Istridhan in the house. A memo regarding this search was also prepared by the I.O. in this regard. The petitioner herein filed WP(Crl.) No. 1085/2010 titled Amit Bhandari Vs. Deeksha Bhandari, IO W/ASI Krishna and State before this Court with prayer for quashing of FIR or in the alternative transfer of investigation to the concerned police station having jurisdiction. This Court vide order dated 26th July, 2010 directed that petitioner shall not be arrested till further orders. The petition was finally dismissed vide order dated 9th March, 2011. On 4th June, 2011 at 12:45 p.m. petitioner Amit Bhandari was arrested by the IO at Delhi. At the time of arrest, petitioner was duly informed about the grounds of arrest. Smt. Adarsh Bhandari, mother of petitioner was present along with petitioner at the time of arrest. She was told about the particulars and details of arrest of her son Sh. Amit Bhandari. She also sign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , however, sanction was obtained from the ACP. Moreover, seven days' prior notice was required to be served upon the petitioner but without serving any notice, the police officials went to the house of his parents on 17th June, 2010 and wanted monetary consideration from his father. He was harassed to such an extent that he ultimately expired for which private complaint was filed before the Pune Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested illegally in violation of the law of arrest as provided under Section 41A of Cr. P.C. and guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The pre-arrest notice is on a plain piece of paper without any attestation and is fabricated one. The arrest memo is also fabricated inasmuch as neither the petitioner nor his mother signed the same. He was not informed about the grounds of arrest nor his mother was informed about the place of his detention. Due to illegal acts of the respondent, the petitioner has suffered immensely and as such, action is required to be taken against them. 12. Repelling the contention of the petitioner, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent, at the outset, challenged the maintainability of the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding order issued vide No. 80033-132 dated 21st December, 2007 was withdrawn and as per this standing order, arrest of the main accused can be done with prior approval of ACP/DCP. As such, the standing order on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner stands withdrawn and as per the standing order dated 8th October, 2008, ACP was also competent to accord approval for arrest of the main accused. 14. It is not in dispute that after seeking approval from ACP, a notice under Section 160 Cr. P.C. was served upon the petitioner for appearance, however, the petitioner expressed his inability to appear due to ill health of his father. According to the respondents, thereafter, pre-arrest notice was tried to be served upon his brother Kapil Bhandari, who refused to receive the same. The petitioner has disputed this fact by alleging that the notice is on a plain piece of paper which is unattested and it was never sought to be served upon his brother nor he refused to receive the same. This fact is required to be proved by means of evidence. 15. Thereafter, it is alleged that on 4th June, 2011, the petitioner was arrested by respondents No. 2 3 when he came out of the Court af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Article 226 of the Constitution cannot adjudicate the matter where the foundational facts are disputed. Rival contentions of the parties cannot be decided in a writ proceeding as held in Himmat Singh Vs. State of Haryana Ors., (2006) 9 SCC 256; Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 693; Bhagavat Singh and etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., 1998 Cr. LJ 3513. This Court is not required to embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the petition which are controverted by the respondents are correct or not. 18. Subhashree Das @ Mili Vs. State of Orissa and Ors., (2012) 9 SCC 729 was also a case where the writ petition was filed under Article 21, 22(2), 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India for illegal detention by police and compensation was claimed. It was held that the claim of the appellant that she had been illegally detained could not have been determined on the basis of disputed facts. In such a case, claim raised by such a petitioner must be determined on the basis of factual position acknowledged by respondent. High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would ordinarily not adjudicate a matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
