PETITIONER: ARVINDER SINGH BAGGA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT16/11/1993 BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 500 JT 1993 Supl. 594 1993 SCALE (4)418 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MOHAN, J.- By this petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner sought a writ in the
nature of habeas corpus to produce Smt Nidhi Bagga Nidhi
Khandelwal w/o Charanjit Singh Bagga.
2. Nidhi Khandelwal and Charanjit Singh Bagga got married
on July 16, 1993 by performing Hindu rites at Arya Samaj
Mandir, Arya Nagar, Bhoor, Distt. Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh.
That marriage was not acceptable to the family of Nidhi
Khandelwal. Therefore, on July 17, 1993 an FIR was lodged
with Police Station Prem Nagar, Bareilly. The case was
registered as Case No. 635 of 1993 under Sections
363/366/506 IPC. After the registration of case, the entire
family of the husband was taken into custody including minor
girls aged 10 and 15 1/2 years. While the female members
were released, the male members continued to be in
detention. Smt Nidhi Bagga continued to be held by the
police and illegally detained.
3. Though a writ petition was filed before the High Court
of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
on account of the lawyers strike, the Allahabad High Court
did not function. This necessitated the cousin of Charanjit
Singh Bagga to move this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.
4. On August 3, 1993, the following order
was passed by this Court
“We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
At the time the petition was moved, the girl
was in police custody. She has since been
released. But, we are afraid, this cannot be
the end of the matter. The writ petition
shall continue as one for qualified habeas
corpus for examining the legality of the
detention for determining whether the
petitioner is entitled to be
+ Under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India
501
compensated for the illegal detention as a
public law remedy for violation of her
Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution, quite apart from criminal or
civil liability which may be pursued in the
ordinary course.
The respondents are directed to file a
counter-affidavit within two weeks.
At the request of Mr R.S. Sodhi, learned
counsel for the petitioner, notice against
respondent 3 is discharged.”
5. In obedience to this order, the Station House Officer
(J.C. Upadhyaya) has filed a counter-affidavit strongly
denying that Mrs Nidhi Khandelwal alias Nidhi Bagga was ever
arrested or detained by the police, much less illegally. On
July 17, 1993 Vikas Khandelwal brother of Nidhi Khandelwal
lodged an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 363/366
IPC alleging that Charanjit Singh alias Channi had
kidnapped/abducted his minor sister Nidhi aged 16 years with
the connivance of other named co-accused persons. On the
basis of that FIR, Case No. 635 of 1993 was registered at
Police Station Prem Nagar on July 17, 1993 against various
persons including Charanjit Singh Bagga. During
investigation, the abducted girl Mrs Nidhi was recovered by
the police of Prem Nagar on July 24, 1993 at 4.30 p.m. from
Bareilly Junction Railway Station in the company of two
accused persons and they were brought to the Police Station,
Prem Nagar, Bareilly. The accused persons were produced
before the Magistrate who remanded them to judicial custody
on July 25, 1993.
6. Soon thereafter,, Mrs Nidhi was brought to the Police
Station Prem Nagar on July 24, 1993 at 5.30 p.m., her mother
Smt Seema Khandelwal was informed of her recovery. Her
mother and brother came to the police station. Mrs Nidhi
had to be medically examined for ascertaining her age.
Meanwhile, it was noticed that lot of people belonging to
Sikh community had gathered around the police station.
There was reasonable apprehension that the girl might be
snatched and forcibly taken away by the people of Sikh
community. Therefore, it was considered necessary and
proper that she be allowed to stay in Police Station Prem
Nagar along with her mother. This was agreed to by both the
mother and brother. On the next day i.e. on July 25, 1993,
Nidhi was sent for radiological examination. Since it was a
Sunday, the Radiology Department was not working. So, she
was brought back to the police station. Thereafter, on July
26, 1993 she was sent for radiological examination. All
these are mentioned in G.D. reports. Then Nidhi came back
to police station after radiological examination with her
mother and lady constable who had escorted her to the
district hospital.
7. On July 27, 1993, she was produced before IInd
A.C.J.M., Bareilly for recording her statement under Section
164 CrPC. Her statement was not recorded since the
situation outside the court was tense. There was
apprehension of breach of peace. The Magistrate directed
that she be produced on July 30, 1993. Under these
circumstances, she was sent to Nari Niketan, Bareilly.
8. On July 30, 1993, after perusal of preliminary X-ray
report, the Magistrate ordered the release of four accused
persons namely lqbal Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Rajender Singh
and Charanjit alias Channi on their furnishing personal
bonds. They were accordingly, released on the same day.
9. The arrest of these persons had to be made because a
cognizable offence was alleged.
502
10. In view of above, it is denied that there was any
illegal detention of anyone. Mrs Nidhi was taken for
radiological examination promptly. The allegation of
alleged detention and harassment are totally false and
denied.
11. A rejoinder has been filed by Mrs Nidhi who would
describe as to how she and her husband were taken into
custody and were taken to Hotel Prayag. While in the police
station, she was threatened by Sub-Inspector Narinder Pal
Singh and SHO J.C. Upadhyaya and SSI Sukhpal Singh. She was
directed to implicate her husband and his family to the
effect that she was abducted and forcibly married
thereafter. She was made to sleep on the floor in the
office of Station House Officer, Police Station Prem Nagar
all by herself. However, she was allowed to have food
brought by her mother. She further states that before she
was taken to hospital, Sub-Inspector Narinder Pal Singh,
Station House Officer J.C. Upadhyaya and SSI Sukhpal Singh,
turn by turn abused and jostled her around the room
threatening to cause her injuries if she did not write down
the note they wished to dictate. SSI Sukhpal Singh went to
the extent of using his ‘danda’ on her legs and poking it in
her stomach. This harassment continued inspite of her
telling them that she had married of her own free will
During her stay in the police station, a lady constable was
deputed to guard her.
12. On the morning of July 26, 1993, SSI Sukhpal Singh
along with Station House Officer J.C. Upadhyaya began using
foul language and making threatening gestures intimidating
her to write a dictated note. Only when SSI Sukhpal Singh
once again hit her with a danda on her legs and made
threatening gestures aiming his danda at her head, upon
which she became petrified and wrote in her own hand
whatever was dictated to her by J.C. Upadhyaya, Station
House Officer, P.S. Prem Nagar. Likewise, she alleges
harassment throughout her stay in police station. She
further alleges that J.C. Upadhyaya, Station House Officer
threatened her that even if the marriage was declared valid
by court, he would make her life miserable.
13. Having regard to these allegations and counter-
allegations, we think before we arrive at a conclusion, it
is highly desirable to call for a report from the District
Judge, Bareilly who will make a thorough enquiry of all the
persons. Accordingly, we direct that he shall submit a
report within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of
this order.
503