# DHANANJA Y SHARMA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1995] 3 S.C.R. 964
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1995-05-02
- **Bench:** Dr. A.S. Anand, Faizan Uddin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dhananja-y-sharma-v-state-of-haryana-and-ors-13032
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 :
S.2(c}-Criminal contempt-Illegal detention of detenues by police ofC ficials in ranks of SP, DSP and SHo-Habeas Corpus petition filed in
Supreme Court-Police officials filing false affidavits and giving false statements 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 swearD 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, Department of Home in not filing affidavit in response to Court's direction disapproved-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 commitG ting contempt of the Court, proceedings regarding commission of perjUT)'
dropped.
Constitution of India :
Articles 32, 144-Habeas Corpus Petition-Court issuing rule nisfH 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 indulging 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 respondent 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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,961 of 98,998. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39961 for what follows._

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 ofC ficials in ranks of SP, DSP and SHo-Habeas Corpus petition filed in
Supreme Court-Police officials filing false affidavits and giving false statements 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 swearD 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, Department of Home in not filing affidavit in response to Court's direction disapproved-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 commitG ting contempt of the Court, proceedings regarding commission of perjUT)'
dropped.
Constitution of India :
Articles 32, 144-Habeas Corpus Petition-Court issuing rule nisfH 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 indulging 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 respondent 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 no. 3 filed another affidavit on behalf of H
966
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995) 3 S.C.R.
A respondents no. 1 to 5, suggesting as if the incident as narrated in the writ
petition and the affidavit of the advocate or the subseq.;ent detention of
the detenue did not take place at all. However, on the same day the taxi
driver was produced before the Court by the Delhi Police whereas the
detenu appeared on his own. The detenu in his statement made before this
B
c
Court, besides corroborating the a
0 ,ertions made in the writ petition and
the affidavit of the advocate stated that the police party took him and the
taxi driver to the Hissar Police Station where respondent no. 3 made
inquiries from him regarding the criminal case against his employers; they
were detained by the police till about 6.30 P.M. On 17.1.1994 after which
they were let off and the police officers at Hissar told him before leaving
the police station that his employer should be asked to meet and talk to
the Police Officers at Hissar. He also filed an affidavit on 22.1.1994 adding
that at the time of incident on 15.1.1994 two employees of respondent no.
7 also accompanied the police party. The taxi driver in his statement made
in the Court on 20.1.1994 and in the affidavit filed on 22.1.1994 admitted
D to have taken in his taxi the detenu and the advocate to th~ court of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar on 15.1.1994, but denied the
incident of whisking away and the detention of the party by the Police. He
stated that all of them had returned to Delhi on 15.1.1994 itself.
E
F
Since, the detenu, was not under any illegal detention at the time of
his return, the court observed that technically the petition of habeas corpus
did not survive, but, keeping in view the contradictory statements and
affidavits filed in the Court and the developments which had taken place
during the proceedings, the conrt directed tlie CBI to have the matter
inquired into and submit a report regarding the alleged incident on
15.1.1994 on the Hissar- Delhi road and the subsequent detention of the
detenu.
The CBI after recording the evidence and inquiring into the matter,
submitted the report to the effect that the detenu and the taxi driver were
illegally detained, as alleged by the detenu; respondent no.4 and 5 presG surised the taxi driver to make the false statement in this Court and to
deny the allegations contained in the writ petition and the affidavit of the
lawyer, and he acted accordingly for fear of Haryana Police.
On considering the report of the CBI and the evidence recorded by
H it as Commissioners of the Court, this Court found that, prima facie,
. -
DHANANJAYSHARMA v. STATE
967
respondents 003 to 5 and the taxi driver made false statements and filed A
~
false affidavits in this Court and thus committed offence of perjury and
accordingly directed notice to be issued to them. Since the affidavit dated
20.1.194 had been filed by respondent no. 3 on behalf of respondents 1 to
5 and despite directions of the Court respondent no. 1 had not filed any
affidavit, the Court directed notice to be issued to respondent no. 1 to 5 B
and the taxi driver to show cause as to why they should not be'punished
for having committed contempt of this Court.
The respondents and the taxi driver filed affidavits in response to
•
~
the notices issued to them. All of them tendered unconditional and unqualified apologies. Respondents no. 1 and 2, explaining their position c
vis-a-vis the affidavit dated 20.1.1994 filed by respondent no. 3 on behalf of
respondents no. 1 to 5, denied to have seen the said affidavit before its
filing in the court and stated that there was no reason to differ from the
report of the CBI. Respondents no. 4 and 5 stated to have acted as officers
subordinate to respondent no. 3, and denied to have tutored the taxi driver D
to make a false statement before the Court. Respondent no. 3, in his
•
...
affidavit dated 21.10.1994, once again denied the allegations contained in
the writ petition regarding waylaying and detention of the detenu and the
taxi driver, and denied to have directly or indirectly pressurised the latter.
The taxi driver admitted in his affidavit that he gave false statement on
20.1.1994 and false affidavit on 22.1.94 in this Court due to fear.
E
Ultimately the Court accepted the report of the CBI as correct and
concluded that respondent no. 3 to 5 were taking special interest in the
investigation of case FIR No. 663/93; the two affidavits filed in reply to the
habeas corpus petition by respondent no. 3 on behalf of respondents no. lo
F
to 5 on 20.1.1994 denying the allegations and the incident of way-laying on
15.1.1994 and subsequent detention of the detenu and the taxi driver at the
;.
police station were false; respondents no. 4 and 5, besides pressurising the
taxi driver to give false version before the Court as indicated in the report
of CBI, also filed false affidavits in this Court; respondent no. 3 filed
affidavit dated 20.1.1994 on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 5 without G
express knowledge of respondents no. 1 and 2.
'
f
Disposing of the matter, this Court
HELD : (Per Dr. Anand, J.) : 1.1. Any conduct which has the tendency
to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial H
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 3 S.C.R.
A proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. Anyone who
makes an attempt to .impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the
unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, com·
mits criminal contempt of the court and renders himself liable to be dealt
with in accordance with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. [993-C, El
B
1.2. The swearing in 'of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any
court of law not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the doe
course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede,
obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice and exposes the
intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. It aims
C at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no court can ignore such conduct
which be bas the tendency to shake public confidence iu the judicial
institutions because the very structure of an orderly life is put at stake.
The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty
of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties
to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. [993-D, F, E)
D
13. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is
allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or
giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law.
The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its
E purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and
clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of pie conrt
and interfere with the course of judicial proceedings or the administration
of justice. [993-G]
F
Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Venna, [1995] l SCC 421, relied on.
2.1. Respondents no. 3 to 5 have committed a grave contempt of this
Court by not only interfering with the due course of justice but also making
calculated and deliberate attempts to obstruct the administration of jus·
lice. Their actions in filing false affidavits and denying that the detenues
G had been whisked away and detained illegally in their custody between
15.1.1994 and 17.1.1994 are not only reprehensible and condemnable but
also require to be dealt with rather sternly. [995-D, 994-E]
2.2. It is a matter not only of regret and concern but also causes great
angnish to notice that during the pendency of proceedings in this court,
H respondents nos. 4 and 5 instead of showing any real contriteness and
•
.:,
·' .,
'
~
DHANANJAYSHARMA. v. STATE
969
regret for their wrongful action of filing false affidavits, compounded their
offence by tutoring the taxi driver and forcing him to make a false statement and file a fals_e affidavit in this Court. They have aggravated their
contumacious acts and deflected the course of judicial proceedings. Their
action was deliberate, an attempt to over reach the due process of law
without compunction, and an affront to the majesty of law. Both of them
deserve to be punished not only for the wrong done by them but also to
give a proper signal and deter others from indulging in similar type of
activities. The interest of public justice demands a deterrent sentence to
be imposed upon them. [995-A, 994-G, 995-E]
23. However, there is no material on the record to show that respondent no. 3 was also a party to the tampering of evidence of the taxi driver.
Indeed, he most have been kept informed by his snbordinates but in the
absence of any. positive material on the record, the responsibility for
making the taxi driver to give false evidence in this Court cannot be
fastened on him. [995-G]
2.4. The belated apologies offered by respondents no. 3 to 5 though
still maintaining that the detenues had not been detained by them, even in
the face of the evidence recorded by the CBI, as Commissioners of this
Court are not apologie• of a truely repentant person but made obvionsly
with a view to escape punishment. Had they been sincere in their apologies
and had they realised their mistake, there was no reason why respondents
4 and 5 should have subsequently indulged in acts which have the affect
of aggravating their contumacious conduct. Under the circumstances, the
question of accepting their belated apology does not arise. The belated
apologies tendered by respondents 3 to 5 which are not genuine, bona fide
or expression of true repentance are rejected. [994-E, F, 995-B, CJ
2.5. Respondent no. 3 shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period
of two months for committing contempt of court by filing false affidavits
denying the allegations made in the writ petition and in the affidavit of the
A
B
c
D
E
F
advocate. [995-H)
G
2.6. Each of respondents no. 4 and 5 shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and shall pay a fine of Rs. 1500 each.
[996-A, BJ
2.7. The taxi driver by making a false statement and filing a false H
970
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 3 S.C.R.
A
affidavit in this court committed a grave contempt of this Court, besides
committing perjury. However, he disclosed the correct fact to the CBI and
reiterated the same subsequently in this Court through his affidavit. He
has tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology. From the report
of the CBI and other material on the record, it is established that the false
B statements made by him in this Court both orally and through his affidavit
were not voluntary and that he was acting under pressure of respondents
4 and 5. It is however no defence to him to say that he so acted on account
of fear of the police and that he bad been 'tutored'. Though be is now
repentant, be cannot be allowed to go scot free for the falsehood indnlged
in by him in this Court and for his attempt to poison the stream of justice.
C However, taking the mitigating circumstances also into consideration, he
is sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment and a line of Rs. 1000 for
committing contempt of this Court. [1000-D to G]
2.8. Neither respondents 6 and 7 nor any of their employees was
present with the police on 15.1.1994 on the Hissar- Delhi road. There is no
D material to show that they are either responsible for the filing of false
affidavits by respondents 3 to 5 or for tampering of evidence during the
pendency of proceedings in this Court. May be respondents 3 to 5, acted in
the objectionable and high-handed manner to way,lay and detain the
detenu and the taxi driver during the investigation of the case FIR No.
E 663/93, registered on the statement or respondent no. 6, to please someone
but this is only in the realm of suspicion and it cannot be said with any
amount of certainty whether it was over-zealousness on the part of respondents 3 to 5 during the investigation of the case or they were trying to prove
themselves 'to be more loyal than the king' or were acting under any
extraneous pressure. But be that as it may, respondents 6 and 7 cannot be
F held responsible for or privy to the actions of respondents 3 to 5; they
cannot be said to have committed any contempt of this Court. The rule
against them is accordingly discharged. [996-E, C, D, Fl
3.1. In view of the mandate of Article 144 of the Constitution, all
G authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India are legally obliged
not only to act in aid of the Supreme Court for the enforcement of the law
declared by it but also in aid of all its orders, decrees or directions. [998-C]
3.2.Wbenever a question is raised regarding illegal detention of a
citizen in a writ of habeas corpus and the conrt issues the rnle nisi, a dnty is
H cast on the State through its functionaries and particularly those who are
f-
DHANANJAYSHARMA. v. STATE
971
arrayed as respondents to th_e writ petition to satisfy the court that the A
·)
detention of the citizen was legal and in conformity not only with the
mandatory requirements of the law but also with the requirements implicit
in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is obligatory on the part of
the respondent State to place before the Court all relevant facts relating to
. "'
the impugned detention truly, clearly and with utmost fairness through an B
affidavit. An affidavit in reply is required to be filed by the respondents not
as a mere formality but to truly assist the court in drawing permissible
inferences from the rival contentions. The State owes an obligation to the
courts to place all relevant facts before the court in all cases where interference is alleged by a citizen with his fundamental rights.
[996-H, 997-A to CJ
C
3.3. Respondents 1 and 2 were, therefore, under a legal obligation to
inform this Court of the facts regarding the alleged deteution of the
detenues since notice had been issued to them in the writ petition. Even
after this Court gave specific directions to respondent no. 1 to file an
affidavit about the steps taken by the State to trace and produce. the D
detenues in the Court, he failed to file the affidavit, and acted in a casual
manner. Complaints regarding detention of citizens cannot be permitted
to be treated in such a casual manner by the State. The manner in which
respondent no. 1 acted even after being apprised of the directions of this
court to file his counter affidavit is disapproved. [997-C, D, 996-G, 997-E]
3.4. From a consideration of the material on the record, respondent
no. 1 appears to have followed a faulty system, then prevailing in the State
of Haryana for filing of counter affidavits in petitions for Habeas Co1J1Us.
E
He stated that he acted on a wrong understanding ·of the import of the
order of this court. There was no scope for not understanding the import F
of this Court's Order dated 19.1.1994 wherein a specific direction bad been
given io respondent no. 1 to file his affidavit. However, the unqualified
apology tendered by him is genuine and an expression of real contriteness
and repentance. Therefore, while cautioning him to be careful in future,
bis unqualified apology is accepted and the contempt proceedings initiated G
against him are dropped. The rule issued against him is discharged. It is
hoped that such lapses shall not occur in the future, since it is stated that
the system has now been revamped. [999-F, ·997.ff, 998-A, 999-G]
3.5. Respondent no. 2 has also filed two affidavits and in each one of
them he has explained the steps taken by him after he was apprised of the H
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 3 S.C.R.
A
pendency of the writ petition in this Court. He has corroboflltedthe version
given by Respondent no. 1 in his affidavit. After giving the explanation, he
has also tendered an unqualified apology. It appears that be is also truly
respondent for the lapses committed by him and the unqualified apology
tendered by him is genuine and bonafide and not made with a view to escape
B
punishment. Unqualified apology tendered by respondent no. 2 is, therefore, accepted and the rule against him is discharged while warning him to
be careful and not to be casual in such like matters in future. [1000-B, CJ
4. Since the respondents 3 to 5 and the taxi driver have been held
guilty of and punished for committing contempt of this Court, the proceedC ings are dropped is so far as commission of perjury is concerned. (1001-D)
D
4.1. The State is responsible for unlawful acts of its officers and it
must repair the damage done to the citizens by its officers for violating
their indefeasible fundamental right of personal liberty without any
authority of law. (1001-A]
4.2. From the report of the CBI and the evidence recorded by it, it
is established that the detenues had been illegally detained by respondents
3 to 5 from the afternoon of 15.1.1994 to 17.1.1994 and Court would have
been inclined to direct the State of Haryana to compensate the detenues;
E
but since one of them has indulged in falsehood in this court and the other
bas exaggerated the incident by stating that on 15.1.1994 when be was
waylaid aloagwith two others, two employees of respondents 6 and 7 were
also present with the police party, a version not·found to be correct by the
CBI, they both have disentitled themselves from receiving any compensation as monetary amends for the wrong done by respondents 3 to 5 in
F
detaining them. [1000-H, 1001-A to CJ
Per Faizan Uddin, J (Concurring) :
1.1. Our policing system in recent times is not as effective as it ought
G to be and require some practical correctional steps and measures. The
primary duties and functions of the members of the police force are to
prevent and detect crime, to protect the life, property and liberty of the
citizens and at the same time obey the orders issued to them by competent
authorities in this regard. [1002-D, A, BJ
H
1.2. In the instant case, the police officers totally misdirected themsel-
/
DHANANJAY SHARMA. v. STATE [DR. ANAND,J.]
973
ves by not allowing the ·truth to come out before this Court. They had the A
audacity to make false affidavits in the apex court to cover up their illegal
acts. It is perhaps one of the most unpleasant episodes in the history or the
force which has been exposed in the portals or the highest court or the land
which has plunged the members or the force and its reputation to a new low
probably out or a frenic zeal to please someone, best known to the officials B
concerned. It is a matter or concern that even senior police officials of the
status or SP and DSP should not realise their obligations to the courts and
indulge in blatant falsehood with a view to mislead the Court. This attitude
on their part is strongly condemned. The Court expects condour and frankness from the parties to the litigation before it. Court proceedings cannot be
allowed to be triffied with. (1002-F, G, 1001-G, 1003-E]
c
1.3. Respondents 3 to 5 acted in most irresponsible manner. They
acted with gross impropriety and intentionally committed serious and
grievous wrong of clearly unredeeming nature. In the circumstances, they
do deserve the punishment awarded to them to serve as a deterrent to
others in future. (10003-C, D, El
D
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) No.
15 of 1994.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
P.P. Malhotra, Gopal Subramanium, R.K. Jain, N. Natrajan, G.
E
Ramaswamy, S.S. Gandhi, N.K. Sharma, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Nisha
Bagchi, Anil K. Makhija, Mahinder Singh, Pankaj Kalra, N.M. Popli, Smt.
Lalitha Kaushik, Naresh Kaushik, Shankar Divate, R.K. Gupta, Prem Malhotra, K.K. Lahiri, Ms. M. Karanjawala, Ms. Nandioi Gore, R. KaranF
jawala, Ms. Ruby Ahuja for the Appearing Parties.
Ranjit Kumar for Driver Sushi! Kumar.
The Judgment of the Court were delivered by
DR. ANAND, J. On 17.1.1994, Shri Parasmal Rampuria of C.R. G
Industries Limited filed a petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus for the release of Dhananjay Sharma from illegal and unauthorised
custody of the Haryana Police and for his production in Court. It b alleged
in the writ petition that on account of some civil disputes between M/s.
Bhanu Iron ~nd Steel Company Limited (in short BISCL) of New Delhi, H
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 3 S.C.R.
A with a factory at Inrode, which is owned by Respondent No. 7, Shri Anoop
Bishnoi, son-in-law of Shri Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister of Haryana and M/s.
C.R. Industries Limited, a case under Sections 406/420 !PC was got
registered by Respondent No. 6 Shri S.K. Kaushik, the Commercial
Manager of BISCL, being FIR No. 663/93 at Police Station Sadar, Hissar
against Shri Pradeep Rampuria and others. On 17.1.1994, a team of police
B party, headed by Additional Superintendent of Police, Hissar Shri Sham
Lal Goel, respondent No. 4, went to the residence of Shri Pradeep Rampuria at Diamond Harbour Road, Calcutta, to arrest Shri Pradeep Rampuria, on the authority of non-bailable warrants of arrest issued against him
by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar. Shri Pradeep RamC puria was arrested and on 7.1.1994 itself produced before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Alipore, Calcutta, who released him on bail till 15.1.1994, with
a direction to appear before the competent court at Hissar. On 15.1.1994
Shri Dhananjay Sharma, the detenu, who is an employee of M/s. Golden
Industries, a sister concern of M/s. CR Industries Limited, along with Shri
D S.C. Puri, advocate went to Hissar in a taxi (van) bearing registration no.
DAE-3668 driven by Sushi! Kumar. They appeared in the court of the
Addi. CJM Hissar and filed an application seeking exemption from porsonal appearance of Shri Pradeep Rampuria on medical grounds. After
filing the application and obtaining the next date from the court, the
detenu, Shri Dhananjay Sharma along with his lawyer Shri S.C. Puri, left
E for Delhi in the same taxi car (van) driven by Sushi! Kumar. A team of
Haryana police officers, riding in six police Gypsy jeeps, way-laid them on
Hissar-Delhi road and while, after some arguments Shri S.C. Puri, Advocate, was allowed to go, the detenu and Sushi! Kumar alongwith the taxi
car were whisked away by the personnel on 15.1.94 and were being illegally
F detained by the Haryana Police and their whereabouts were not known and
that they had not returned to Delhi. Shri S.C. Puri, Advocate filed on
affidavit in support of the writ petition, wherein it was inter a/ia stated:
'That after obtaining the date, the depon~nt came to his car waiting
outside the court premises and advised Mr. Danjay Sharma to
G
direct the driver to take us back immediately to Delhi.
H
That we hardly travelled one or two kilometers that a number
of fully armed police gypsies of Haryana Police appeared at the
site and surrounded the Maruti Van in which we were travelling.
One of the police officers ordered the driver to show him the
f'
'
•
~-
-}
DHANANJAY SHARMA v. STATE [DR. ANAND, J.]
975
papers relating to the vehicle which were handed over to him by A
the driver. The deponent immediately came down from the van.
However, Mr. Sharma and the driver wore not allowed to come
out of the van and remained surrounded by the folly armed Police
Officers. They also wanted the deponent to sit in the Maruti Van
or even in their own vehicle to which the deponent resisted strongB
ly. On persistent enquiries from the deponent, one of the police
officers had a talk with some of his superiors on wireless set and
after completing the conversation, Mr. Dhanjay Sharma and the
driver of the said vehicle were taken away by the Armed Police
Squad towards city side leaving the deponent on the road. The C
deponent boarded a three-wheeler and came to a nearby market.
The deponent ~ontacted Shri P .P. Malhotra, Senior Advocate and
narrated him the whole incident from a shop having STD facility.
Thereafter, the deponent boarded a bus and reached Delhi at
about 4.30 p.m."
On 18.1.1994 after perusing the affidavit of Shri S.C. Puri and the
writ petition, this Court issued notice to the respondents. Miss Indu
Malhotra, Advocate, Standing Counsel for the State of Haryana, accepted
D
the notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. Copies of the petition and the
affidavit had already been handed- over to her by the learned counsel for
E
the petitioner. A direction was issued by us· to respondent No. 3 to produce
the detenu Dhananjay Sharma and the taxi driver Sushi! Kumar, .if in
detention, in this Court on 19.1.1994. Respondents 3 to 5 were also directed
to file an affidavit indicating the circumstances under which they took the
detenu and the driver of the taxi car, Sushi! Kumar, into custody, as alleged
in the petition and in the affidavit of Shri S.C. Puri. Notices by ordinary F
means were issued to respondents 6 and 7. On 19.1.1994 respondents 3 to
5 filed their affidavits. Shri Sham Lal Goel, Addi. Superintendent of Police,
Hissar respondent No. 4 in his affidavit denied the allegatiol\S made in the
writ petition as well as in the affidavit of Shri S.C. Puri, Advocate. In para
1 of the affidavit he stated:
G
"That in reply to para No. 1 of the petition it is submitted that
neither of the alleged detenues, namely, Shri Dhananjay Sharma
or Shri Sushi! are/were wanted in any case of Hissar District, nor
they were over detained or confined by any police officer/official H
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995) 3 S.C.R.
A
as alleged. It is also wrong and hence denied that the said alleged
detenues are or over were in the unlawful, illegal and unauthorised
~ustody cf the official respondents, as alleged."
In paras 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 (there are no paragraphs
numbered as 5 to 8) the details of the case leading to the registration of
B the FIR against Shri Rampuria and others and the investigation of the case,
registered on the statement of S.K. Kaushik, respondent No. 6 were given.
It was asserted that the dispute between the parties was not of a civil
nature. In para 12 it was admitted that an Advocate had appeared in the
court of Addi. OM, Hissar on 15.1.1994 and had filed an application for
C exemption from personal appearance of Shri Pradeep Rampuria and that
the court had adjourned the case to 12.2.1994. Rest of the allegations were
denied.
Shri Rajinder Singh Inspector, SHO, Police Station Sadar Hissar,
D respondent No. 5, in his affidavit stated that he had been wrongly implicated in the petition and asserted that the incident as alleged in the writ
petition never took place. He went on to say :
E
F
G
H
"I submit that on the rel~vant date i.e. 15th Jan., 1994 I was present
on duty in the Court of the Addl OM in the morning at about 11
a.m. and remained in the court premises till late afternoon .. On the
said date the deponent was present in court when the application
was filed on behalf of Shri Pradeep Rampuria. The deponent also
submitted an Application for the issuance of fresh warrants against
Shri Paras Mal Rampuria & Shri Mukharjee since the earlier
warrants were only valid till 15.1.1994. At the time of presentation
of the application the learned Magistrate directed that photocopies
of the FIR & other relevant documents be also filed alongwith the
application. Consequently after the departure of the petitioner &
his Advocate, the deponent remained within the court premises to
prepare the photocopies which were thereafter submitted to the
court of the learned Magistrate on the same day. Thereafter the
deponent also went to the office of the Asst!. District Attorney in
connection with the scrutinising of certain challans. It is consequently submitted that the deponent could not be involved in the
incident as alleged in the writ petition nor does he have any
knowledge that any other police officer working in the Sadar Hissar
1
\
DHANANJAY SHARMA v. STATE [DR. ANAND, J.]
977
Police Station has indulged in such activity."
Respondent No. 3, Shri Anil Davra JPS, Superintendent of Police, in
his affidavit asserted:
A
"That in reply to para No. 1 of the petition it is submitted that
neither of the alleged detenues namely Shri Dhananjay Sharma or B
Sushi! are/were wanted in any case of Hissar District, nor they
were ever detained or confined by any police officer/official as
alleged. It is also wrong & hence denied that the said alleged
detenues are or ever were in the unlawful, illegal and unauthorised
custody of the official respondents, as alleged."
C
Thereafter, respondent No. 3 referred to the investigation in connection with the FIR registered at the instance of respondent No. 6 Shri S.K.
Kaushik and maintained that the dispute between the parties was not of a
civil nature and went on to say:
"It is submitted that the petitioner has levelled these false allegations. against the Hissar Police with ulterior motives in order to
win the sympathy of this Hon'ble Court. In fact the deponent or
D
any other police officer working nnder his command have never
resorted to any such illegal activities as alleged by the petitioner E
in this para. The deponent is a staunch believer of rule of law and
as such he cannot over think of flouting the rule of law. As already
submitted in the proceeding paras of this affidavit neither Sri
Dhananjay Sharma nor taxi driver Shri Sushi! was ever wanted by
the Hissar Police in any criminal case or were they over whisked
away by the police personnel of Hissar Police with the help of any F
police gypsy as alleged."
Thus, respondents 3 to 5 in their affidavits denied the allegations
levelled against Haryana Police with regard to the whiskill!\ ·away of
Dhananjay Sharma and driver Sushi! Kumar on 15.1.94 and their subsequent detention, thereby refuting the assertions made in the affidavit of G
Shri S.C. Puri, Advocate, and the petitioner. Since the allegations made by
Shri Puri, Advocate, were of a serious nature and if true they disclosed a
rather disquitening state of affairs, on 19.1.1994, before proceeding further
in the matter, we deemed it proper and necessary, in the first instance, to
direct the Home Secretary, Government of Haryana, respondent No. 1, H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1995] 3 S.C.R.
A through his learned Advocate Shri Kapil Sibal, to have a search made for
the detenues Dhananjay Sharma and the taxi driver Sushi! Kumar and have
them produced in this Court. In the course of our order, we said :
B
c
D
"The Home Secretary, Government of Haryana, may if he finds it
necessary take assistance from the Delhi Police, and on such
request being made the Commissioner of Police, Delhi shall afford
all assistance to him. We are issuing the directions in the name of
the Home Secretary, Government of Haryana, to avoid any possibiliiy of a plea being raised that respondents No. 3 to 5 are unable
to trace out the taxi or the peti(ioner and Sushi! not hailing from
areas falling within their jurisdiction in Hissar.
We expect that the needful shall be done and all efforts shall
be made to produce Shri Dhananjay Sharma and Shri Sushi!
Kumar in this Court tomorrow. An affidavit disclosing from where
they have been brought and the whereabouts of the taxi as mentioned above shall also be filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1."
On 20.1.1994, inspite of our specific directions (supra) no affidavit
was filed by the Home Secretary, respondent No. 1. However, one more
affidavit was filed by Shri Anil Davra, Superintendent of Police, respondent
E No. 3, "on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to. In the said affidavit it was stated
that respondents 3 to 5 with the help of Delhi Police had been able to
identify the taxi stand form where taxi No. DEA-3668 operated and that
they were also able to ascertain the whereabouts of driver Sushi! Kumar
and had contacted him. Respondent No. 3 further deposed:
F
G
H
"On enquiries from said taxi driver Shri Sushi! Kumar the Delhi
Police were told that he returned to Delhi alongwith Shri Dhananjay Sharma from Hissar on 15th January 1994 itself and left them
at Daryaganj, New Delhi. The Incharge of the Police Post, Church
Mission Road, S.I. Surender Kumar, has assured the presence of
said Shri Sushi! and the concerned vehicle in the court premises
today.
Further I submit that the respondents are still making efforts
to trace Shri Dhananjay Sharma but as yet has no information of
his whereabout specially since the police does not have any means
of identifying him."
DHANANJAY SHARMA v. STATE [DR. ANAND, J.]
979
On 20.1.94, Shri Sushi! Kumar was produced by the Delhi Police and A
the detenu Shri Dhananjay Sharma on his own also appeared in the Court.
Their statements were recorded on oath.
Shri Dhananjay Sharma in his statement deposed about the manner
in which he had been way-laid, along with others and whisked away by the
Haryana Police form the Delhi-Hissar Road on 15.1.94. He then stated 1hat B.
the police party took him and Sushi! Kumar to the Hissar Police Station
where Shri Anil Davra, called them to his room and made enquiries from
him regarding the case against Shri Rampuria and others. He further stated
that whereas they were kept during the day at the police station on
Saturday, during the night intervening Saturday and Sunday, they (Sushi! C
Kumar and himselt) were kept in a police 'residential quarter' behind the
police station. They were let off on 17.1.1994 at about 6 or 6.30 p.m. and
the taxi car was also released. They left Hissar at about 7.30 p.m. and
arrived at Delhi at about 11.30 p.m. on 17.1.94. He further stated that the
police officers at Hissar had told him before leaving the police station that D
Shri G.R. Rampuria be told to meet and talk to the police officers; at
Hissar. He went on to say that while in the police custody at Hissar, under
instructions of Shri Davra, they were provided with food. He went on to
depose that since some personnel of Delhi Police had visited his residence
the previous evening and had met his sister, leaving directions for him to
appear in the court, he had come to the court on his own.
E
Shri Sushi! Kumar taxi driver, in his statement in the court however,
gave a totally different version. He admitted that on 15.1.94, he had gone
to Hissar alongwith Shri Dhananjay Sharma and Shri. S.C. Puri in his taxi
to the court of Addi. CJM at Hissar. He then stated that after leaving the
F
court premises, at about 12.00 or 1.00, in the afternoon on 15.1.94, all of
them returned to old Delhi, reaching there at about "7 ·p.m. on 15.1.1994
itself. He denied that he or Shri Dhananjay Sharma were either whisked
away or kept in illegal detention by the Hissar Police,. as alleged in the
petition and in the affidavit of'Shri SC Puri, Advocate. He further stated
that the Hissar Police had contacted him at the taxi stand and that the G
Delhi Police hac;l directed him to appear in the court and that he ha~ been
brought to the court from the taxi stand by sub-inspector, Surinder Kumar,
of Delhi Police.
After recording the statements of M/s. Dhananjay Sharma and Sushi! H
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 3 S.C.R.
A Kumar and going through the affidavits filed by the parties, we found that
two diametrically opposite versions had been given and that the truth had
not come out and that either of the two versions was false. Both Sushi!
Kumar and Shri Dhananjay Sharma also filed their affidavits on 22.1.1994.
In his affidavit while Shri Sushi! Kumar reiterated the statement made by
B
him in Court, Shri Dhananjay Sharma, reiterated his case as disclosed by
him in his statement in the Court.