LexDHANANJAY SHARMA versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
DHANANJA Y SHARMA
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
MAY 2, 1995
B
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.)
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 :
S.2(c}-Criminal contempt-Illegal detention of detenues by police of-
C ficials in ranks of SP, DSP and SHo-Habeas Corpus petition filed in
Supreme Court-Police officials filing false affidavits and giving false state-
ments in Court-Besides, DSP and SHO effectively pressurising one of
detenues to file false affidavit and give false statement in Court-Even after
report of C.B.J. establishing factum of illegal detention of detenu by police
personnel, latter filing false affidavits in Court denying the fact!t"-Held swear-
D ing of false affidavits in a court of law amounts to criminal contempt as it
has not only the tendency of causing obstruction in due course of judicial
proceedings, but also to impede, obstruct or inteifere with administration of
justice-SP, DSP and SHO punished for committing contempt of
Court-Their apologies rejected being not apologies of truly repentant persons
E but made with a view to escape punishment-Conduct of Secretary, Depart-
ment of Home in not filing affidavit in response to Court's direction disap-
proved-Director General of Police warned to be careful in future-Apologies
tendered by these two, being genuine and bona fide, accepted.
F
Indian Penal Code :
Ss.191, 192-Perjury-l'o/ice officials-Swearing of false affidavits and
giving false statements as also effectively pressurising one of the detenues to
give false statement and false affidavit in Supreme Coult-Contempt notice
as also notice of perjury issued-,Since punishment was awarded for commit-
G ting contempt of the Court, proceedings regarding commission of perjUT)'
dropped.
Constitution of India :
Articles 32, 144-Habeas Corpus Petition-Court issuing rule nisf-
H Obligation 011 State fu11ctionaries i11 response t&-Held, all authorities i11 the
964
\ -
·1 '
DHANANJAY SHARMA. v. STATE
965
. cou11try legally obliged 11ot Ollly to act ill aid of the Supreme Court for A
ellforcement of law declared by it, but also ill aid of all its orders, decrees or
directions-Conduct of fullctionaries ill not filing affidavits about steps taken
by the State to trace and produce detellues in court disapprove{f-State's
respollsibility for unlawful acts by its officei:1 a11d to pay compensation for
violating ftmdamellta/ rights of citizenr-Exp/ained-Po/icing system in the
country requires practical con·ectiona/ nieasures and steps-Detenue's indulg-
ing ill falsehood i11 court disentitles him from receiving compellsation.
Article 129-Contempt of Cowt-Exercise of power by Court to punish
B
• "'
for.
In the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas
Corpus for the release of the detenue from illegal and unauthorised custody
of the Haryana Police and for his production in Court, it was alleged that
on account of some civil dispute between two companies - respondent no.
c
6 being Commercial Manager of one and the other being owned by respon-
dent no. 7, son-in-law of the Chief Minister of Haryana - a criminal case D
(FIR No. 663/93) was got registered against the owners of the company of
which the detenu was the General Manager; the detenu filed an application
·on behalf of his employer for exemption from personal appearance in the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar in connection with
the said criminal case; while he and an advocate were returning in a taxi E
car on 15.1.1994, a team of Haryana Police Officers waylaid them on
Hissar-Delhi road; after some arguments, the advocate was let-off but the
detenu and the taxi driver.were whisked away by the police personnel and
since then they were being illegally detained by the police and their
whereabouts were not known. The advocate filed an affidavit supporting
the incident as narrated in the writ petition. On 18.1.1994, this Court F
issued notice to Secretary, Home Department, Government of Haryana,
Director General of Police, Haryana, Superintendent of Police, Hlssar,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hissar, SHO, Hissar (respondents no. 1
to S respectively) as also to respondent• no. 6 and 7.
Ou 19.1.1994, when respondents no. 3 to S filed affidavits denying the
allegations made in the writ petition and the affidavit of the advocate, this
Court directed respondent no. 1 to have a search made for the detennes
and have them produced in this Court.
G
On 20.1.1994, respondent nExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.