‘Primitive British Raj method’: Allahabad High Court slams Kanpur police for harassing kin of ‘fugitive’

Justices J J Munir and Tarun Saxena

‘Absconding convict’

• The petitioner’s son was convicted under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Punjab.
• The convict, according to the commissioner of police, was absconding and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, had issued a non-bailable warrant for his arrest, with a direction to produce him before the magistrate.
• In search of the convict, the police reached the father’s home and questioned him, the Allahabad High Court noted.
• It was stated that the father informed the police that due to his son’s ‘immoral activities’, he had issued an advertisement in various newspapers seeking to disinherit him from all his movable and immovable properties.

• The Allahabad High Court found that the commissioner stated in the affidavit before the court that, during the inquiry, no official certificate was provided by the petitioner on the matter.
• At the outset, the court noted that there can be no certificate disowning a son.
• It added further that disinheritance, when done by a man for his heir at law, is a complex procedure involving execution of Wills or gifts or assignments of one’s property to leave no residue for the heir to inherit; else, after a person’s death, all heirs would inherit the property in accordance with law.
• Disinheritance comes as a matter of law in certain situations; for instance, when a man is murdered by his heir, the law might regard him as “dis-entitled to inherit”, the Allahabad High Court said.
• It, therefore, held that the police’s insistence that the petitioner furnish a certificate, showing that he had disinherited his son, was ill-advised and misconceived.

‘Absolutely illegal’

The court further observed that the petitioner’s allegations of being summoned by the police to reveal the whereabouts of his son were true and illegal.

“With much technological advancement that enable the Police to locate the whereabouts of any man, this kind of a primitive method ought not be adopted. We are convinced in this case that the allegations of the petitioner are true that he and his wife were summoned to the police station over a period of time to make them reveal the whereabouts of their son. This is absolutely illegal,” the court remarked.

It also noted that the petitioner’s counsel produced a copy of a Punjab and Haryana High Court order, which recorded that a Chandigarh police officer had filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner’s son was arrested.

“No doubt, it is duty of the Police to apprehend every fugitive, but that has to be done in a lawful manner. It is no lawful exercise of authority by the Police or discharge of their duty to apprehend a fugitive by harassing others, including relatives of the fugitive. The Police must, therefore, in the circumstances, stay away from the petitioner (father) for future contingencies,” the Allahabad High Court observed.

It allowed the petitioner’s plea and directed the police not to harass him in any manner. “We allow the writ petition and restrain the Police from harassing the petitioner in any manner, summoning him to the police station or paying him domiciliary visits in connection with the conviction and incarceration of the petitioner’s son,” the bench ordered.

The court admonished the station house officer of the police station concerned, noting that the petitioner’s right to privacy and dignity was violated.

“We are of opinion that the petitioner’s right to privacy and dignity have been apparently violated. The violation is one in intangible terms. We, therefore, admonish the Station House Officer, Police Station Gujaini, District Kanpur Nagar, that is to say, the Station House Officer incumbent at the relevant time and warn him to be careful in future,” the Allahabad High Court held.