1. A letter from the petitioners dated 04.04.2024, was received in the Registry of this Court on 10.04.2024 and on the directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice, was ordered to be registered as Criminal Writ Petition and has now been registered as Cr.W.P No. 10 of 2024.
2. The prayer made in the letter was two fold; (i) stern action be taken against Chander Shekhar, Dy.SP and Police officials of Police Station, Anni for violation of human rights and; (ii) FIR may be registered on the basis of this complaint.
3. The aforesaid letter is in Hindi and its translation is as under:-
To
Hon’ble Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh.
Subject: Complaint for registration of an FIR against Chander Sekhar Kaith, Dy. Superintendent of Police (DSP), Ani and other police officials of PS Nirmand for giving beatings to Sarvdyal, Madan Lal and Neema Ram.
Sir,
This is to submit that I, Sarvdyal son of late Shri Sangat Ram, Neema Ram son of Jeevat Ram and Madan Lal son of Shri Shyam Lal are the permanent residents of village Charudwar, P.O. Arsu, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P., village Shaathal, P.O. Arsu, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P., P.O. Arsu, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P., respectively. All three have been working as Reporters for a local news channel named as Local News of India-”Gaon Ki Goonj Dilli Tak” for past 2 years. On 01.04.2024, we i.e. Sarvdyal and Mandal Lal had gone to village Juny, Gram Panchayat Nishani, Development Block Nirmand for news coverage. The officials of Forest Department and that of the Revenue Department have instituted false cases of unauthorized possession of land measuring just 3 bishwanshi(s) each and this possession was being removed in compliance to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. The local people were agitating against this action and we telecast this incident on our channel and we had covered this incident involving the officials of Forest Department and the local people. Thereafter, officials of the Forest Department and Police Department left the venue. While we i.e. Madan Lal and I were returning home after the coverage, we came across a police vehicle in which the wire crates were loaded and we made a video of this vehicle. At about 8:00 p.m. I sent the same video to Lokender Singh Vedic, Chief Reporter of Lok News of India. In order to verify the video, he had a conversation with Dy. S.P. Chander Sekhar Kaith. The said video had not been telecast on any channel by that time. Thereafter, at about 9:00 p.m. till 10:00 p.m. I was called repeatedly over the phone for reporting at the police sation and was asked as to how I made a video of the police vehicle and was further threatened to be put behind the bars. I can produce the recording of the same. Thereafter, I aired the entire episode live on my facebook page which is in the name of Sarv Dayal Azad and I also telecast the said recording on my facebook page.
I asked the DSP regarding my fault for which he was repeatedly threatening me and I told him that the actual fault lies with his officials who had loaded the wire crates in their vehicle. On April 2, 2024, in the morning, I received a call for reporting at PS Nirmand. Whereupon I alongwith Neema Ram went to Nirmand. At around 12:00 p.m. no sooner had we reached the Tehsil Office at Nirmand, the DSP and other police officials forcibly took Neema Ram, Madan Lal and me by continuously giving us beatings with sticks. They gave us beatings with stick and belts which made us unconscious and they trampled on us with their shoes on. These severe beatings had caused injury-marks on our bodies. Photographs whereof can be provided when required. They also snatched our phones. Upon regaining consciousness, they asked us to delete the videos and threatened that if we did not delete the video they would beat us again in the same manner. We were subjected to inhuman treatment and I was pressurized to sign a written apology. I had also lodged a complaint on Mukhyamantri Seva Sankalp Helpline No. 1100. However, I was beaten and compelled to withdraw the said complaint. Thereafter, we were released from the police station Nirmand and we were in such a bad condition that we were unable to walk. We asked the police to have our medical examination done but request was not heeded. We request your good-self to have the videos retrieved from our phone which were got forcibly deleted and we are ready to hand- over our phones for this purpose. I had a severe back pain at around 12:00 a.m. and I was admitted to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Khaneri where I am undergoing treatment at the moment. Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that strict action against Chander Sekhar, DSP, Ani and the officials of police station Nirmand may be initiated for their blatant violation of our human rights and an FIR may be ordered to be registered on the basis of the instant complaint and oblige please. Dated: 04.04.2024 Copy to:
"Sd/- Applicants
Sarvdyal son of late Shri Sangat Ram, village Chaurudwar, P.O. Arsu, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P.
Neema Ram son of Jeevat Ram of village Chaurudwar, P.O. Arsu, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P.
Madan Lal son of Shri Shyam Lal , P.O. Arsu, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P.-172002
Mob. No. 7018303948
1 Director General of Police, Shimla
2. Superintendent of Police, Kullu
3. Hon’ble Chief Justice, Shimla
4. Human Rights Commission, Shimla
5. National Human Rights Commission, Delhi
6. Hon’ble Governor, Shimla
7. Chief Election Commissioner, Shimla"
8. Shri Leeladhar Chauhan, Chairman, Aas Foundation and Human Rights Defender, H.P.
4. It would be noticed that in addition to sending the complaint to this Court, the petitioners have sent the same to various other authorities and one person, as is evident from the endorsement Nos. (1) to (8) (supra).
5. On being put to notice, the respondents have filed their reply wherein they have denied all the allegations leveled in the letter petition and the petitioners have filed rejoinder to the same.
6. During the pendency of this petition, respondents No. 3 and 5 filed Cr.MP No. 3382 of 2024 for placing on record the certified copies of the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C along-with the statements recorded in the said complaint, pending before the learned JMIC, Anni, District Kullu, H.P.
7. A perusal of the complaint (Annexure-A), accompanying the aforesaid application (Cr.M.P No. 3382 of 2024) would go to reveal that prior to the receipt of the letter written by the petitioners allegedly on 04.04.2024, which was received in the Registry on 10.04.2024, they had already approached the learned Magistrate by filing a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, containing the following averments:-
“1. That the complainants are the residents of above stated address and are Press Reporters of Local news of India by profession.
2. That, on dated 01/04/2024 the complainant along with his colleauge namely Madan Lal were present at Village Khanota in connection with their professional engagements of reporting Thereafter the complainant alongwith his colleauge were travelling back to their home in personal vehicle then Govt. vehicle of police department of P.S Nirmand, bearing no HP 66A 1356 was moving ahead of our vehicle which was loaded with bundles of Crate wires. Thereafter Madan Lal press reporter recorded a video clip of police vehicle through his own personal phone and after that we moved to our destination and the police vehicle turned toward Nirmand.
3. That, thereafter Madan Lal above said reporter sent the recorded video of police vehicle to his Sr. Gabber Singh Vedic (Press Reporter). Then they came to know that Sh Gabber Singh Vedic sent that recorded video clip to SDPO Anni. On becoming furious on seeing that video clip, SDPO Anni telephonically ranged up to Sh. Sarv Dayal and threatened him with life threat and dire consequences and asked who the hell you were to mission record the video clip of our vehicle and threatened forcefully to drag me to the police station.
4. That, on dated 02/04/2024 the police personal chased the vehicle of complainant Sh. Sarv Dayal when he was moving toward Nirmand. Sh. Neema Ram joined me from Thans Maur while moving to Nirmand. Thereafter we approached at Tehsil Complex Nirmand at about 12:00 PM in afternoon, Suddenly SDPO Anni Sh. Chander Shekhar along with 12 police official (staff) except S.H.O Nirmand and one A.S.I Devender Verma entered into Tehsil Complex Nirmand and started giving severe beatings with blows, kicks and with dandas to Sarv Dayal and Neema Ram in presence of public and forcefully snached our cell phones. The police officials gave merciless beatings to us and forcefully dragged us to police station Nirmand and the said SDPO ordered his staff to turn off all the CCTV Cameras installed in police station Nirmand. After that they dragged us to inside police station and used 3rd degree torture upon our person and injured us very badly and we become unconscious there. Thereafter Madan Lal (Complainant no 3) came to police station to know whereabouts of the complainant no 1 and 2. The SDPO Anni asked the name of Complainant no 3 and on disclosing the name by complainant no 3 the SDPO said you were the person ommission ho recorded our video clip and started beating mercilessly to complainant no 3 Sh Madan lal and dragged him also inside gallery of Police station and given 3rd degree torture on his person by lying him down on the floor and beaten him by Patta, Danda and blows and kicks. Thereafter the SDPO compelled the complainants to delete the recorded video clip as well as the content uploaded on social media platform and not to report the matter elsewhere, Thus
in this way, SDPO Anni alongwith his staff acted maliciously and illegally committed us to confinement. The complainant said the SDPO Anni that you were acting contrary to law but despite this fact SDPO Anni continued with severe beatings to our persons and abused us by saying that" tum sale patrkaar tumhari patrkaarita mai nikalta hun aur in patrkaaron ko talwaar se kato".
5. That the accused persons are aggressive. The complainants tried to lodge FIR against SDPO Anni and police staff but they didn't lodge the FIR. Thereafter, the complainants reported the complaint to SP Kullu but despite this fact police officials didn't lodge FIR hither to, hence the complaint.
6. That the accused persons have intentionally and with criminal design forcibly restrained the complainants and beaten them with a" Danda" Patta and threatened the complainants with dire consequences of life.
7. That the accused persons pointed a pistol on the complainant while threatening them of serious consequences, therefore the complainant has apprehensions of repeating the offence again in future by the accused persons.
8. That, the complainants apprehends that the Chander Shakher is currently serving as SDPO Anni so there is very oblique chances of fair and transparent investigation so the independent investigating agency may kindly be constituted in the present matter.
It is therefore, prayed that the Incharge Police Station Nirmand, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. may kindly be directed to register the criminal case in various penal provisions U/S 166-A IPC read with section 87 (1,II Police Act) 220,330,504,506,342,323 IPC Act against all the accused persons in the interest of Justice and fair play.”
8. It also needs to be noticed that respondents No.3 & 5 have along-with this application annexed copies of statements of the petitioners recorded on 27.05.2024 as CW-1 to CW-3, statements of Chaman Lal son of Sh. Doot Ram, resident of village Thaans, P.O. Arsu, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu as CW-4, statement of Sh. Brij Lal son of late Sh. Hukum Ram resident of village Shahidwar. P.O. Arsu, Tehsil Nirmand,
District Kullu, H.P. as CW-5 recorded on 27.06.2024 and statement of Bhupinder son of Sh. Salig Ram, resident of village Panasha, P.O. Poshna Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu recorded on 05.07.2024 as CW-6 as preliminary evidence.
9. Thus, it would be evidently clear from the aforesaid that the petitioners, in addition to pursuing the instant letter petition, are also pursuing the complaint filed by them under Section 156(3) Cr.PC containing somewhat similar allegations and prayer(s). Meaning thereby, the petitioners are pursuing two parallel proceedings and have not elected to choose either of the proceedings. Thus, in such circumstances, this Court will not like to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and would direct the petitioners to have the matter adjudicated by the concerned Magistrate, whom the petitioners have already approached.
10. In K.S. Rashid & Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission SCR 1954 page 738, a dispute arose under the Taxation of Income (Investigation Commission) Act. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under that Act. A writ petition was filed in the High Court of Punjab challenging the validity of the proceedings initiated under the said Act. One of the contentions raised before the High Court was that the Act being of a special nature which created new rights and liability and the remedies and so for any breach or violation thereof is concerned, the only remedies which could be pursued by the aggrieved party are those provided under the Act and that under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution would not be available. This among other contentions was accepted by the High Court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held as follows:
"For purposes of this case it is enough to state that the remedy provided for in Article 226 is a discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. So far as the present case is concerned it has been brought to our notice that the appellants before us have already availed themselves of the remedy provided for in Section 8(5) of the Taxation of Income (Investigation Commission) Act and that a reference has been made to the High Court of Allahabad in terms of that provision which is awaiting decision. In these circumstances we think that it would not be proper to allow the appellants to invoke the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution at the present stage and on this ground alone we would refuse to interfere with the orders made by the High Court."
11. In Jai Singh vs. Union of India 1977 (1) SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“In our opinion, the appellant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time."
12. In M/s S.J.S Business Enterprises (P) Ltd vs. State of Bihar and others, 2004 (7) SCC 166, following the ratio laid down by a Constitution Bench in K. Rashid’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if a party has already availed of an alternate remedy, it would not be appropriate for the Court to entertain the petition. This Rule is based on public policy, but the motivating factor is the existence of a parallel jurisdiction in another Court.
13. As observed above, the petitioners herein are pursuing parallel remedies in respect of the same cause, one before this Court and another before the learned Magistrate. Prior to the letter petition, the petitioners had already approached the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. Meaning thereby that after filing the aforesaid complaint, the petitioners are now choosing to mount on another horse, but have not dismounted from the first one. The petitioners obviously cannot ride on two horses at the same time. Though, in circus one gets to watch such an acrobatic performance, but such exercise cannot be allowed in a Court of law.
14. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate would argue that the public law remedies are in addition to private law remedies and, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. However, we find no merit in such proposition, as this proposition is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, given the limited prayer made in the petition which has not been amended even after engaging a Counsel.
15. The petitioners appear to have ante dated their complaint (letter) to this Court and prior to the receipt thereof, had already approached the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.PC and this fact has not even been disclosed in the letter petition addressed to this Court.
16. That apart, this Court cannot pre-empt the trial by delivering the judgment on the culpability of the respondents. This Court would be grossly erring in foreclosing the trial by pre-judging the evidence which is yet to come on record.
17. It is otherwise more than settled that when a competent Court of jurisdiction is already seized of the matter, the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution, as the case may be, should not initiate parallel proceedings or order a parallel investigation, leading to a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. This would only cause judicial waste of time.
18. Even otherwise, the law will take its own course and it is not for this Court to either pre-empt such course or pre-judge the cause. It also needs to be noticed that despite the Counsel having put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners, the only prayers made in the letter petition were for registration of FIR and taking stern legal action against Chander Shekhar, Dy.SP and police officials of Police Station, Anni.
19. Now, as regards the registration of FIR, the petitioners have already taken recourse to lawful remedy by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC before the Magistrate. As regards violation of human rights, it would be noticed that the copy of complaint which was sent to this Court has also been endorsed to eight other authorities, including the Human Rights Commission, Shimla. If the petitioners so choose, they can always approach that authority for the redressal of their grievances.
20. In the given facts, it is the course that is required to be followed by the petitioners, particularly, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinesh Pundir vs. State of U.P. and others, (2002) 9 SCC 563. Therein, the petitioner had made a complaint that her husband who suffered injuries at the hands of the police, was required to be compensated and action be taken against the police authorities. On the basis of allegations and counter- allegations and on the basis of the report submitted by the District Judge, the Hon’ble Supreme Court left it to the Government to initiate appropriate departmental proceedings in accordance with Rules applicable to the Officers against whom certain adverse comments have been made by the learned District Judge, who conducted the inquiry. So far as the husband of the petitioner is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted liberty to him to file a complaint before the Magistrate concerned having jurisdiction over the matter, for appropriate action under the criminal law and in case he wanted to claim damages, it was left open for him to approach the Civil Courts or Human Rights Commission or seek other remedies.
21. It shall be apt to reproduce the judgment in its entirety, which reads as under:-
“1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. This Court, by order dated 23.4.1999, directed an enquiry as to whether the Petitioner's husband suffered injuries on account of certain alleged cruelty on the part of the police authorities. According to the petitioner, her husband suffered injuries at the hands of the police authorities for which her husband was liable to be compensated and action is to be taken against the police authorities. The District Judge, Muzaffarnagar was directed to inquire into the matter to find out if there is any prima facie material. He accordingly conducted an inquiry and submitted a report to this Court, dated 14.1.2000.
3. Apart from various observations and findings given by him, we may refer to one aspect of the report wherein the learned District Judge was of the view that there was a "possibility" that the Sub-Inspector Tushar Bora along with Sub-Inspector Suraj Bhan and Constables Devendra Singh and Chandrahas might have visited the village of petitioner in a jeep and entered in the ghar of the Petitioner on the night of 2.5.1998 and that they assaulted the husband of the Petitioner and it appears that due to the injuries which were inflicted, subsequently husband of the Petitioner developed some complications in his upper limbs and was taken to the Primary Health center, Charthawal, for treatment from where he was referred to the District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. It was, however, found that the contention of the Petitioner that her husband was taken to police station by Respondent Nos. 3 to 14 was incorrect and false. The report also stated that the allegation of the Petitioner against two Constables, Krishna Pal and Gajaraj Singh were not established because they were on leave. We do not think it necessary to go into the merits of the findings given by the learned District Judge in the above report. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the report, it will be for the Government to initiate the appropriate departmental proceedings in accordance with the Rules applicable to the officers against whom the learned District Judge made adverse comments. We direct the Government of U.P. accordingly.
4. So far as the husband of the Petitioner is concerned, it will be open to him to file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate who is having jurisdiction over the matter, for appropriate action under the Criminal Law. If he wants to claim damages, it will also be open to the husband of the Petitioner to approach a civil court or the Human Rights Commission or seek other remedies.
5. We are not to be understood as having said anything on the merits of the allegations raised by the Petitioner or the findings arrived at by the learned District judge.
6. If any proceedings are taken as above, they will be decided in accordance with law.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.”
22. Further, we also need to take into consideration the fact that the respondent-Department has already initiated preliminary inquiry and during the course of arguments, it was informed by Mr. Navlesh Verma, learned Additional Advocate General that based on the preliminary inquiry, the respondent-Department has decided to proceed further in the matter by conducting a regular departmental inquiry against the police officers/officials. Once that be so, it is all the more the reason that this Court would be loathe to interfere at this stage.
23. Since the competent Court is already seized of the matter in proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to proceed further in the matter. Even otherwise, disputed questions of fact have come on record, which, in the absence of evidence, cannot be decided in this petition.
24. In cases like the instant one, the Court is to be guided by what has been observed by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.), in a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in case titled as State of H.P and another vs. Sakshi Sharma and others, 2014 (Supp) Shim.LC 563, more particularly, the observations contained in para 11 and 12 which read as under:-
"11. It has to be remembered that while exercising the powers of a Constitutional Court a firm finding of fact in such like case can be returned only in exceptional cases. The observations made by the learned Single Judge may though be founded upon the material on record, nonetheless they remain only tentative for want of conclusive proof and at best can be termed to be prima facie views only. No doubt, in the case in hand, the allegations are serious, even the circumstances somewhat seem to support them, even the consequences are quite apparent, yet the material on record is not within the degree of conclusive proof on the basis of which firm findings of fact could have been returned. These at best may have given rise to a strong suspicion, but yet could not have been held to be conclusive. The truth must surface in the interest of those who are accusing and/or are being accused, therefore, to reach a definite conclusion, the investigation and disciplinary proceedings are inevitable whereafter alone the guilt, if any, of the police officials can be established.
12.This Court otherwise cannot be oblivious to the fact that in teeth of such firm findings as recorded by the learned Single Judge, no subordinate court or even the disciplinary authority would dare to go beyond these findings. More so when the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not even state of that the findings as recorded are only tentative or prima-facie. Obviously, therefore, the findings so recorded in our considered view amounts to pre-judging the issues because the matter is pending investigation/disciplinary proceedings and it is possible that on its conclusion the Court /disciplinary authority may have sufficient material with it on the basis of which whatever has been said in the judgment could be sustained. However, it is equally possible that the material which the Court/ disciplinary authority may collect may not be enough to substantiate those allegations. When both the possibilities are there, the learned Single Judge should not have returned firm findings at this pre- mature stage.”
25. In view of the discussion made above, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. The petitioners are at liberty to avail of such remedy as available to them under the law. We may clarify that we have not gone into or adjudicated the case on merits of the allegations/counter-allegations leveled by parties and, therefore, the dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way of the petitioners while taking recourse to the lawful remedy.
