The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the courts to exercise their jurisdiction, the consequences of fraud in legal proceedings, and the need for substantial justice.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. (Oral) - CRM No. 31214 of 2020

Prayer in this application is for early hearing of the main petition.

Heard.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the main case, which is fixed for 05.03.2021, is taken up today for hearing.

CRM No. 31209 of 2020

Heard.

Allowed as prayed for.

Documents (Annexures P-22 to P-26) are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

CRM-M No. 40506 of 2019 (O&M)

A murdered man was found alive. Still the 15 years long agony of the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') is not buried by the Courts below.

2. This is the state of affairs that despite the National Judicial Academy as well as the Chandigarh Judicial Academy, holding seminars and imparting training to the Sessions Judges or the Magistrates, that judicial consciousness demand real and substantive justice and there is nothing illegal in the judicial system if in exceptional case, a Court, in quest of truth and justice passes an order acknowledging the constitutional right of a citizen, the Additional Sessions Judge,-I, Ludhiana and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with them.

3. The constitutional vision of imparting justice by the District Judiciary also encourages the Courts to be an instrument to establish a welfare state based on an equal justice to all as Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that the right to life and personal liberty cannot be taken away except by procedure established by law which should be just, fair and reasonable. Similarly, Article 38 of the Constitution of India provides that the state should strive to promote the welfare of people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may be a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall be ensured. Even, Article 39-A of the Constitution of India provides equal justice and free legal aid and commands the State to secure the operation of legal system, to promote justice based on an equal opportunity.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners (who are the retired police officials) were posted in Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana and had arrested one Hardeep Singh @ Raju, son of Nagender Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') in FIR No.139 dated 25.08.2005 registered under Sections 15 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act'). When the police party was taking Hardeep Singh @ Raju in a government vehicle to produce him before the Illaqa Magistrate, he escaped from the police custody and another FIR No. 140 dated 25.08.2005 was registered against him under Section 224 IPC. Thereafter, the complainant filed a criminal writ petition i.e. CRWP No.448 of 2005, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus to produce his son Hardeep Singh, on the pretext that he has been illegally detained by the police in Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana. A Warrant Officer was appointed but Hardeep Singh could not be recovered.

5. Later on, on 17.09.2005, a dead body of an unknown person was found and its post-mortem was conducted. Thereafter, the complainant alleged that the dead body is of his son and the petitioners/accused have murdered him. This Court directed the Additional Director General of Police (Crime), to get an enquiry conducted and submit a report. "The Additional Inspector General of Police (Crime) gave a report that the dead body recovered from the pond was not of the son of the complainant and he was alive and was in regular touch with the complainant/father." Thereafter, this Court directed the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, to hold an enquiry and submit a report about the whereabouts of the son of the complainant. The Sessions Judge submitted an enquiry report on 31.08.2008, holding that the son of the complainant was eliminated by the police while in custody. In view of the said report, the aforesaid CRWP No.448 of 2005, was d