HC raps Jalandhar police for overriding court, fines ₹1 lakh

Takes a strong exception to cops’ handling of property dispute between 2 brothers; says they exceeded their powers to help the respondent

JALANDHAR : The Punjab and Haryana High Court has castigated the Jalandhar commissionerate police for overriding the “power and jurisdiction” of a civil court and imposed a penalty of Rs 1 lakh for the overreach.

The court observed that the police “unnecessarily dragged a Jalandhar man into litigation” over a property (shop) dispute he had with his brother. “The zeal and zest shown by the police authorities, out of the way, to help the respondent by exceeding their powers and overriding the jurisdiction of civil courts are apparent from records,” said the bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan on Friday.

The bench said Rs 1 lakh be recovered from the Jalandhar police commissioner. “It will be up to the police commissioner to recover the cost from the erring police officials(s) after conducting an inquiry in accordance with law,” the order read.

The court also set aside the probes conducted by an assistant commissioner of police (ACP) in 2017 and the deputy commissioner of police (investigation) in 2020, saying they should not be treated as evidence by any court of law.

Surinderjit Singh had filed a petition in HC in 2017, seeking quashing of the police inquiry reports and to get the matter probed by an officer not below the rank of inspector general (IG) posted outside the Jalandhar range as “the local cops were favouring respondent Narinderpal Singh”. He had also sought removal of a lock put by assistant inspector of police (ASI) Simarjit Singh on the complaint of Narinderjit.

The HC also directed the police commissioner to remove the lock immediately.

The bench questioned whether police officials in the garb of maintaining law and order can deal with a property dispute pending in a civil court.

“Can the police put a lock without taking recourse either under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) or order appointment of a receiver? Such action of the police amounts to partisan exercise of power, thus overriding the powers of a civil court which had even granted stay in favour of a party,” the bench observed.

The petitioner said he purchased the shop in question at Mandi Fanton Ganj of Jalandhar city from his Mohinder Kaur in 2014 for Rs 1 crore as his father had bequeathed the property in her name in 1989.

He claimed that his brother started interfering when started interfering in the construction work of shop started after it was dismantled.

Narinderjit’s counsel submitted that he is co-owner of property as he was in possession of one sixth portion of it and the 1989 will was executed fraudulently.

Also, the HC bench said “it seemed that even the civil court had adopted a casual approach as it was not deciding both the suits pending since 2014 as the matter could have been decided in an expeditious manner”.

Can police put a lock without taking proper recourse either under the CRPC or ordering appointment of a receiver? Such action amounts to partisan exercise of power. HIGH COURT BENCH