High Court sought the appearance a Station House Officer (SHO) of Police before the court for explaining why he should not be punished for disobeying and disrespecting the Supreme Court guidelines.
Justice V C Koul while holding the SHO Gandhi Nagar, Jammu guilty for committing the contempt of court has directed him to appear personally before the court on July 14 to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of court.
The court has also directed the police to initiate departmental action against the SHO for violation of the Supreme Court directions. “Respondent-SHO is also liable to pay compensation. The amount of compensation to be paid by respondent to petitioner shall be decided and directed on next date of hearing i.e 17.7.2025”, read the order.
The petitioner-Iqbal Singh alleges that he was arrested by the SHO in a case without following the Supreme Court guidelines and kept him in custody without following the due procedure and Supreme Court guidelines laid down in a case titled as “Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar”.
The Apex Court in the said judgment has laid down various guidelines for arrest of any persons and one of them is that all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC.
“Shorn off further deliberation, it is made clear here that the Executive, including Government/non-government functionaries and the police department is no exception to that, is under legal, constitutional and statutory obligation and duty to comply with all the orders of the Courts inasmuch as judicial orders are binding on the executive to uphold the rule of law”, Justice Koul reiterated.
The incumbent SHO instead of showing the respect of these guidelines did not hesitate to submit in writing that if the judgment of the court is to be followed in a strict sense, then almost all the officers of the State would be held liable under clause 11.5 of the judgment. Daily Excelsior
