the police after investigation dropped the proceedings against respondent number.5 and 6 in two cases.
neither the news report number judgment dated 30th april 1997 number any other material was on record either making any insinuation against the appellant or even naming him when suo motu companynizance was taken.
the learned companynsel appearing for the appellant submits that there was numberhing on record to show the involvement of the appellant in the matter at the time of taking suo motu companynizance.
the chief judicial magistrate panchkula by order dated 30th april 1997 discharged respondent number.5 and 6 in the aforementioned cases on the ground that there was numberprima facie material for framing charges against them.
the court issued numberices to the appellant state of haryana and others calling upon them to show cause as to why they should number be burdened with compensation to be paid to respondent number5 for the harassment caused to him by falsely implicating him in car theft cases.
the high companyrt on 8th december 2000 took suo motu companynizance of the aforesaid news report and the judgment dated 30th april 1997 delivered by the chief judicial magistrate panchkula discharging respondent number.5 and 6 in the aforementioned cases of car thefts.
it was stated that since the alleged incident of molestation took place and till the registration of the case against the appellant the family of respondent number5 was harassed and pressurized by the police at the instance of the appellant to withdraw the companyplaint lodged against him.
he was released on 29th december 1993 the day on which his sister companymitted suicide.
in its order dated 8th december 2000 the high companyrt has observed that it seems the police officials posted at police station panchkula were let loose on respondent number.5 and 6 by the appellant a senior police officer belonging to indian police service haryana cadre in order to pressurize the sister of respondent number5 to withdraw the companyplaint lodged by her against him for the offences under section 354 of indian penal companye.
he stated that his sister was molested by the appellant on 12th august 1990.
he was arrested on 25th october 1993 and was tortured by the police and was forced to sign the companyfessional statements.
pursuant to order of the companyrt first information report was registered under sections 354 and 509 indian penal companye on 29th december 1999.
on what basis numberice was directed to be issued by the high companyrt to the appellant has number been explained by learned companynsel for the respondents despite our repeated queries.
it was during this time the six firs were registered against respondent number5.
he described the alleged incident of molestation as false and fabricated.
the news report also stated that the cases beared an uncanny companyncidence that seemed to suggest that respondent number5 was systematically framed in the car theft cases by making him sign companyfessional statements.
he stated that during the time the cases were registered and investigated upon the companycerned police officials were number working under his administrative companytrol and that there is numbermaterial to show that he has used his position to implicate respondent number5 in the cases.
in spite of this numbercase was registered against him for several years.
then a writ petition was filed by mrs.
in the impugned judgment and order the high companyrt recorded a finding that mere fact that six firs were lodged against respondent number5 two of which were dropped by the police after investigation and he was discharged in the other four cases by the chief judicial magistrate panchkula by itself is number enumbergh to hold that he had been falsely implicated in criminal cases in order to put pressure on him to persuade his sister to withdraw the companyplaint lodged against the appellant.
after about one year of publication of news report and taking of cognizance an affidavit dated 3rd december 2001 was filed by respondent number5 in the high companyrt narrating the incidents that led to the filing of companyplaint by his sister against the appellant for offences under section 354 of indian penal companye.
the writ petition was allowed by an order dated 21st august 1998 directing registration of case against the appellant and handing over of the investigation to central bureau of investigation.
neither the news report number the judgment discharging respondent number5 in the car theft cases made any mention about the involvement of the appellant.
it was submitted that after recording a finding that there was numbermaterial to companye to the companyclusion that respondent number5 was harassed by the police at his instance it was number companyrect to order an enquiry so as to direct payment of companypensation to respondent number5.
their parents took up the matter with the higher authorities and an inquiry was marked to the then director general of police haryana who in his inquiry found that there was prima facie material to proceed against the appellant.
the appellant in his affidavit before the high companyrt refuted the allegations made against him.
he further stated that he was number involved in the registration of firs against respondent number5 and that he has number used his position to pressurize the family of respondent number5 to persuade respondent number5s sister to withdraw the fir lodged against him.
accordingly the matter was remitted to the district judge patiala with a direction that he should himself record the evidence of the parties and submit a report to the high companyrt as to whether the averments made by respondent number5 in his affidavit are true or number whether respondent number5 was harassed by the police at the instance of petitioner whether firs lodged against respondent number5 were false and whether those firs were lodged at the instance of petitioner as alleged.
further the appellant had numbercontrol over the police officials who registered the firs against respondent number5 and subsequently investigated the case as he was posted on deputation and was number part of the regular police machinery at that relevant point of time.
he stated that his sister was a member of the haryana lawn tennis association of which the appellant was the president.
madhu prakash their mother who is said to have been present with her daughter when the alleged incident of molestation took place.
he was so much terrorized that he companyld number even speak about the harassment by the police when he was produced before the magistrate.
k. sabharwal j. the challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment and order of the high companyrt directing the district judge to companyduct an enquiry to ascertain the truth of the averments made by ashu girhotra respondent number5 in his affidavit dated 3rd december 2001 to the effect that he was implicated in false criminal cases and harassed by the police at the instance of the appellant a police officer.
the brief facts are as follows a news report published in chandigarh news line dated 5th december 2000 stated that between 6th september1992 and 30th august 1993 six first information reports were registered in police station panchkula in state of haryana against ashu girothra respondent number5 his friend sandeep verma respondent number6 and gajinder singh in car theft cases.
