H.S.BEDI, J. - (1.) THE present proceedings arise out of a writ of Habeas Corpus filed in this Court. Notice was issued in the Writ Petition for 5.8.1994 and a Warrant Officer was deputed to carry out the raid for the recovery of the detenues. As per the report of the Warrant Officer, the detenues were recovered from the premises of Police Post, Salem Tebri and an explanation for their presence in the Police Post was also tendered by Balbir Singh, the Station House Officer concerned. The explanation was that they had been brought to the Police Post in connection with their interrogation in a criminal case. As there was a serious dispute between the petitioner and the respondents with regard to the reasons for the presence of the detenues in the Police Post, I thought it fit that the matter be enquired into further by the District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Haryana. The parties accordingly appeared before the Enquiry Officer on a number of dates and on 3.10.1994, an attempt was made by the Sub Inspector Balbir Singh and Head Constable Balkar Singh to prevent the witnesses from appearing before the Enquiry Officer. This too was reported to the Enquiry Officer and an enquiry was conducted into this incident as well. Two reports have thus been placed before me, one pertaining to the illegal detention of the detenues and the second with regard to the incident on 3.10.1994, which took place in the Court premises. Copies of the report have also been given to Mr. Sharma appearing for the Sub Inspector Balbir Singh.
(2.) IT has been argued by Mr. Sharma that there were serious discrepancies in the report rendered by the Enquiry Officer and as such, they should not be taken note of. He has also urged that it would be more appropriate if the reports aforesaid were treated as complaints and forwarded to the concerned Magistrate, who could further forward them for investigation under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if he found it necessary. Both these arguments of the learned counsel are without merit. A preliminary enquiry has already been held by an officer of the rank of Sessions Judge and any further enquiry would be highly irregular. Moreover, under Section 154 Cr.P.C. once it comes to the knowledge of Police Officer that a cognizable offence has been committed, he has no option but to register a First Information Report. To my mind, the enquiry report is an information to that effect.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, it is directed that photocopies of the entire record, including the enquiry reports, be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and a direction is further issued that a case under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code be registered against Sub Inspector Balbir Singh and others found to be involved in the incident. In the additional report, the Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that Sub Inspector Balbir Singh and Head Constable Balkar Singh had made an attempt to prevent the witnesses from appearing in the enquiry proceedings. This matter squarely falls within the definition of criminal contempt as the enquiry was held pursuant to the directions issued by this court. Notice should, therefore, be issued to Sub Inspector Balbir Singh and Head Constable Balkar Singh for February 23, 1995 to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt of Court be not initiated against them. As the matter would have to be dealt with as a criminal contempt, further proceedings would have to be continued before a Division Bench and as such, the papers be put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for that purpose. As far as the present proceedings are concerned, the same are disposed of in view of the above order. Order accordingly.;