[Non-Reportable] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 17 OF 2007

KAKA @ TILAK RAJ (MINOR) TR.FATHER & ANR.          ….PETITIONERS

VERSUS

STATE OF H.P. AND ORS.           … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1. The petitioner has made the following prayers in this petition  

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India:

“(a) direct the Respondent No.1 – State of Himachal Pradesh  

to hold an independent, fair and impartial enquiry by  

the sitting Judge of the Hon’ble High Court or by the  

District Judge of the Concerned District and to submit  

report within a specific time period with regard to illegal  

detention, inhuman treatment, merciless beating by the  

respondents  No.  2  to  7  on  dated  16.11.2006  and  

17.11.2006;

   (b) Award reasonable and sufficient compensation in favour  

of      the  petitioner  Nos.  1  and  2  for  their  illegal  

detention  and  the  said  compensation  to  be  awarded  

from the personal pocket of the Respondents No.2 to 7;

   (c) Initiate  prompt  and  necessary  departmental  enquiry  

against the Respondents 2 to 7 herein for keeping the  

law of the land at bay and for creating lawlessness in  

the society by way of indulging in corrupt practice just

to pressurize the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-  

to them for none of their fault.

W.P (CRL.) NO. 17/2007

(d) Requisite direction be issued to the respondent No.1 for  

lodging an FIR against the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 under  

Section 193, 211, 341, 342, 447, 504, 506 and 34 IPC  

in  the  concerned  police  station  and  to  record  the  

statement of the persons present more than 100 on the  

date of forcibly taken out the petitioners in the police  

custody by dragging from the field to the main road in  

order  to  ascertain  the  complete  truth  of  the  alleged  

illegal action of the respondents No.2 to 7 ;

(e) The show cause notice be also given to the concerned  

Chief  Medical  Officer  of  the  Government  Hospital,  

Nurpur, Tehsil Nurpur as to how when the son of the  

Respondent  No.8  was  initially  medically  examined  by  

the Governemt Dispensary at Fatehpur on the alleged  

date and it remained without any medical help for 4-5  

days,  thereafter  the  report  given  by  the  concerned  

Dispensary Doctor  seems to  be authentic rather  than  

the MLR given by the concerned Chief Medical Officer,  

Govt.  Hospital, Nurpur after a prolonged time from the  

alleged  occurrence  not  only  seems  to  false  and  

fabricated  documents  but  it  is  the  handiwork  of  the  

local politicians to book the present petitioner No.2 in  

the aforesaid offences after prolonged delay and as such  

the concerned M.L.R. procured by the respondents No.2  

2

to 7 in order to save their skin for the illegal demand  

made by them on 8.9.2006;

3

W.P (CRL.)   NO. 17/2007   

(f) a  contempt  proceeding  be  initiated  against  the  

responents No.2 to 7 for gross violation of the direction  

of  this  Hon’ble  Apex  Court  reported  in  Dilip  Kumar  

Basu Vs. State of W.B. & Ors. – reported in AIR 1997  

SC 3017;

(g) and pass such other or further order or orders as this  

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and  

circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. We are unable to see how these prayers can be permitted to  

be raised in a writ petition directly in the Supreme Court under  

Article 32 of the Constitution.  Nevertheless as the learned counsel  

for the petitioner has referred to certain illegal acts committed by  

the respondents in violation of the directions of this Court in D.K.  

Basu Vs. State [AIR 1997 SC 3017] and submitted that proceedings  

pending  against  the  petitioner  in  various  criminal  courts  be  

quashed,  a  fresh  enquiry  be  ordered  by  the  CBI  or  the  District  

Judge, that compensation be awarded to the petitioner and that an  

FIR be lodged against respondent Nos. 2 and 4 i.e Shri Hirdu Ram,  

DSP and Jog Raj,  ASI as an attempt had been made by all  the  

respondents  collectively  to  extort  money  from  the  petitioner  we  

have chosen to go into the facts of the case as well.   

3. A reply has been filed on behalf of all the respondents by the  

SP Dharamshala, and it has been pointed out that enquiries had  

revealed  that  the  petitioner  and  his  father  Kashmir  Singh  had  

beaten  some  persons  and  this  fact  had  been  found  as  correct  

4

during the course of the investigation and the two had accordingly  

been arrested, but as the   petitioner  was  a  Juvenile,  he had  

been sent to the Juvenile Court at Una and later, released on bail  

and handed over to his uncle Vijay Kumar.  It also appears that as  

a consequence of an agitation by a political party, an enquiry had  

been conducted by the SDJM, Jawali  and he had forwarded his  

Report to the higher authorities, suggesting that no further action  

was  required  to  be  taken  in  the  matter  as  it  was  under  

investigation.  It has further been highlighted that a charge-sheet  

had been filed against the petitioner and his father and the matter  

was under trial as of now.  The allegations that the petitioner had  

been beaten or an attempt had been made to extort money from  

him or anyone else  has been specifically  denied.   Alongwith the  

reply, an order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial  Magistrate, Jawali,  

District-Kangra,  H.P.  dated  3rd February,  2007  has  also  been  

appended.   This  order  pertains  to  an  enquiry  made  by  the  

Magistrate with regard to a reference as to whether the directions  

issued by this Court in D.K. Basu and ors.  had been violated.

4. The  final  observations  in  this  order  are  relevant  and  are  

reproduced below:

“Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the   

case,  I  am  of  the  considered  opinion  that  there  is  no   

violation  of  basic  requirement as  laid  down in case  D.K.  

Basu supra were infringed.  Infact, the requirements are to   

be followed as a major to prevent the custodial violation.  It   

is nowhere disputed by the applicant that he was subjected   

to  custodial  violation.  Infact,  this is not at all   a  case   of  

5

W.P (CRL.) NO. 17/2007

custodial  violation.   Hence, there is no substantial  merits,   

therefore, show cause notices issued to the respondents are   

hereby dropped.  Be tagged with the main case.”

In this view of the matter, the judgments cited by the learned  

counsel cannot come to his aid.   

5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, but with liberty  

to the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the Criminal Courts.  

..............................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

…………………………J. (J.M. PANCHAL)

NEW DELHI,  DATED: JANUARY 15, 2010.

6