Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.B.Mehrotra, V.P.Goel
HARI KRISHNA MAHASHWARI ALIAS HARI MAHESHWARI
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 17 May 1996
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 35956 and 37064 of 1992
The Court addressed the issue of alleged police encounters resulting in the death of citizens and the violation of human rights. The petitioner, a newspaper editor, filed a writ petition alleging that the police were killing people in fake encounters to earn money and implicate them in false cases. The Court examined the allegations and the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents, including the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a newspaper editor, filed a writ petition alleging that the police were killing people in fake encounters to earn money and implicate them in false cases. The Court examined the allegations and the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents, including the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the police had indeed killed people in fake encounters and that this was a violation of human rights. The Court also found that the police had not conducted proper investigations into these killings and that the magisterial inquiries were often inadequate or non-existent.
Issues: 1. Whether the police were killing people in fake encounters and violating human rights. 2. Whether the police had conducted proper investigations into these killings. 3. Whether the magisterial inquiries were adequate or non-existent.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the police had indeed killed people in fake encounters and that this was a violation of human rights. The Court also held that the police had not conducted proper investigations into these killings and that the magisterial inquiries were often inadequate or non-existent. The Court directed the respondents to hold a magisterial inquiry invariably in all cases where the police claim to have killed a person in an encounter and also to inform the relatives of such person immediately on the occurrence of the death. The Court also recommended the State Government to constitute a State Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Courts as provided in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as early as possible.
Final Decision: The Court directed the respondents to hold a magisterial inquiry invariably in all cases where the police claim to have killed a person in an encounter and also to inform the relatives of such person immediately on the occurrence of the death. The Court also recommended the State Government to constitute a State Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Courts as provided in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as early as possible.
petitioner killed by entangling the petitioner in some offence. The second relief prayed was that in accordance with the consti tutional machinery of the country, the petitioner is praying to the Court that respondents may be asked to explain their encounter policy and facts in the said regard may be fully looked into. The third relief claimed in the petition was that an enquiry be conducted by a Judicial Officer regarding all the cases pending against the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner filed an affidavit.
2. In Writ Petition No. 37064 of 1992, the Home Secretary, Uttar Pradesh? the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and S. S. P. Kanpur City, Kanpur were arrayed as respondents and a relief was prayed that in presence of some Judicial Officer, the petitioner be permitted to run his business of Scooter Stand and publication of kanpur Crime Reporter or the officers, who are indulging in violating the honour of the Court and are professionally humiliating the Court should be directed to ensure continu ance of the petitioners aforesaid business. Second relief prayed in this petition was that the petitioner should be permitted in accordance with the concept of equality provided in the Indian Constitution to earn money by killing people for which the petitioner is competent and which the petitioner has proved by standing in the Court on 15th October, 1992 that the peti tioner is capable of doing the same as has been done by the police by killing 20,000 people and thereby earning money or getting money on the basis of arranging these murders. Special relief prayed in the petition was that the Honble Court may pass such orders against such professional killers so that they may realise that the judiciary of the country has its own honour and the persons Indulging in deteriorating the said honour are not to be spared as has been done by Calcutta High Court in its decision reported in AIR 1992 Cal 105 holding that the Court cannot be spectator of permitting anybody to do wrong.
3. The reliefs prayed for are in a very peculiar and vague words and do not make out any sense as to what the petitioner prayed for.
4. However, the aforesaid writ petitions were registered as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition in this Court and notices were issued to the respondents to file their counter-affidavits. Both the matters have been heard together for a long period of four years by different Courts and the petitioners conduct Is mainly responsible for this inordinate delay in deciding the case as whenever a court wanted to hear the matter, the petitioner had been indulging in making baseless and false allegations not only against the Judges of this Court but also against the Chief Justice of this Court and entire Judicial system and Indulging himself even In abusing the Judges, Chief Justice of this Court as well as the Apex Court. The petitioner had also throughout been moving one application of the other making several grievances during the pendency of the matter and on above application the Court asked for a counter-affidavit, the bulk of the case at present is con tained in hundreds of pages, the details whereof, in short, will be given hereinafter.
5. Before proceeding with the applications and affidavits which the petitioner has been filing from time to time, it is necessary to mention the contents of the petitions themselves.
6. In Writ Petition No. 35956 of 1992, the petitioner stated that Annexures 1 and 2of the petition may be looked into. Annoxure 1 to the petition is a Criminal Misc. Petition filed by the petitioner in the Supreme Court being Criminal Misc. Petition No. 32993 of 1984 in Transfer Petit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
