REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO.          OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (crl) no. 5761/06)

State of Punjab & Ors. ….Appellants

Versus

Paramjit Kaur & Ors. ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is  to the order passed by a learned Single

Judge  of  the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  allowing  the  writ  petition

purported to be a Writ of habeas Corpus.  The High Court by the impugned

order has directed that the State of Punjab to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to

the writ petitioners and the family as for alleged custodial disappearance of

the writ petitioner’s husband. It was observed that the said act was clearly

attributable to the remissness and the failure of duty on the part of the police

department since the police has not been able to find out the whereabouts of

the  writ  Petitioner’s  husband.  It  was  noted  that  in  cases  where  police

officials  are convicted  on the basis  of the charge sheet  submitted by the

Central  Bureau  of  Investigation  (in  short  the  ‘CBI’),  the  amount  of

compensation shall be recovered from them.  

3. Questioning  correctness  of  the  order,  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant-State  and the  concerned Police  officials  i.e.  respondents  2 to  4

have submitted that when the matter was pending in a criminal court, the

High  Court’s  observations  about  the  officials  being  responsible  for  the

disappearance for the writ petitioner’s husband and the conclusions about

the  remissness  and  failure  of  duty  are  clearly  unsustainable.  These

observations  are  bound  to  have effect  on  the  trial.  It  is  pointed  out  that

before  this  Court  passed  the  order  of  stay  on  10.11.2006,  the  State

Government had already made payment of the amount as directed by the

High Court on 20.5.2006.  We agree with learned counsel for the appellant

2

and  the  respondent  police  officials that  when  the  matter  is  pending

adjudication in a trial  before a criminal court,  the High Court  should not

have made any observation which would have effect on the trial by the trial

court.  We, therefore, dispose of this appeal with the direction that even if

payment has been made pursuant  to the High Court’s  order  by the State

Government,  that  shall  not  be  construed  to  be  a  concession  to  the

allegations made.  The trial before the criminal court shall be conducted in

accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made by

the High Court about the remissness and neglect in duty is by the police

officials.  The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

……………………..…………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……..…………………..………J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, March 25, 2009

3