'State Can't Be Party To Misuse Of Police Machinery': Supreme Court To Punjab Govt On Allegation Of False Cases Being Filed By MLA Simarjeet Singh Bains Against Complainant

While hearing Lok Insaf Party MLA Simarjeet Singh Bains' plea against the non-bailable warrants issued against him in an alleged rape case of a 44-year-old woman, the Supreme Court on Thursday sought the State of Punjab's response to allegations of false and frivolous cases being filed against the complainant- lady by the MLA.The complainant lady has filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the false and frivolous cases alleged to be instituted against her by way of 'malafide, highhandedness and political clout of the Simarjit Singh Bains' in Punjab.A Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli made strong remarks against the 'misuse of police machinery' by a public representative. Addressing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Bains, the Chief Justice of India remarked " Mr Rohatgi, You have seen your client's activity? How your man is harassing people, he is a public representative, MLA for two times, is this the way to behave? I want the Advocate General to appear in this matter"The CJI then addressed the Advocate General for State of Punjab DS Patwalia and said "What is happening in your State? How many cases he has filed against the lady, and he wants anticipatory bail and lady should go to jail. You can't be party to such kind of misuse of police machinery."Advocate General DS Patwalia informed the Court that it was a dispute between both of the parties and the State didn't have much to do with it. He however agreed that as guardians of law it is the State's duty to protect the The Bench has directed the State of Punjab to file a counter affidavit in one week. In the meanwhile, the Court has stayed the proceedings in the cases filed against the complainant lady for two weeks, and has granted Simarjeet Bains interim protection from arrest for one week.On last occasion, the Court had granted protection from arrest for two days the MLA. The Bench had restrained the State of Punjab from arresting him till Thursday.The Bench had decided to hear the special leave petition filed by Bains along with another writ petition filed by the complainant lady who had accused him. The petitioner Counsel Advocate Gagan Gupta had urged the Court to pass orders in the present SLP only after first hearing the writ petition filed by the complainant. The present special leave petition by Bains has been filed challenging the interim order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in issuing notice returnable on 25.01.2022 without granting stay of the Magistrate's order dated 10.12.2021 through which non bailable warrants were issued against the petitionerThe case was listed today after urgent listing was sought by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, submitting that the petitioner has to file his nomination for election in Punjab but non bailable warrants are issued against him.The Petition filed through Advocate Misha Rohatgi has submitted that there is grave urgency in the matter as in view of non-bailable warrants continuing against the Petitioner, he would not be in a position to file his nomination for the Punjab elections, which can only be filed upto 1st February. The petitioner has argued that the High Court erroneously without appreciating the ex-facie false case registered against the Petitioner, failed to consider the prayer for grant of stay of the order dated 10th December 2021 passed by the Magistrate whereby the Magistrate stayed further investigation in the FIR and issued non-bailable warrants against the Petitioner.The petition has argued that the Magistrate vide order dated 10.12.2021, on an erroneous interpretation of law stayed further investigation on the basis that permission from the Court was required to be taken before conducting further investigation. According to the Petitioner, further investigation was critical he has gained knowledge from newspapers that the witnesses who have given statements against him have submitted applications that the statements were procured under political pressure. In any case, the law as laid down by Supreme Court does not mandate prior permission for conducting further investigation.The Petitioner has submitted that the Complainant against him in the present FIR initially had a monitory dispute with one Mr. Sukhchain Singh against whom she made complaints before various authorities. Pertinently, there was no allegation against the Petitioner in the said complaints. Subsequently, the Complainant settled disputes with Mr. Sukhchain Singh and also gave a voluntary statement dated 10.10.2020 before ADCP – II, Ludhiana. However, during this period the Complainant came in contact with other politicians who have used the Complainant for their oblique political motives and got the present FIR registered.According to the petitioner, the High Court while passing the Impugned Order failed to take note of the following crucial aspects:The chargesheet dated 08.11.2021 submitted to the Magistrate was incomplete...

'State Can't Be Party To Misuse Of Police Machinery': Supreme Court To Punjab Govt On Allegation Of False Cases Being Filed By MLA Simarjeet Singh Bains Against Complainant

Srishti Ojha

Tags