Himachal Pradesh High Court refuses to recall order for removal of DGP Sanjay Kundu
(Bilaspuri satrala)
The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday refused to recall its order for removal of India Police Service (IPS) officer Sanjay Kundu from the post of Director General of Police (DGP) of Himachal Pradesh [Court On Its Own Motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others].
The High Court order for Kundu’s removal had last week been stayed by the Supreme Court till the decision on his recall application. The application was heard by the High Court for almost the whole day on January 5.
The division bench of Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua in the order passed on Wednesday rejected Kundu’s application, saying no case has been made out by him for recall of the order dated December 26.
“Should this Court, under the pretext of protecting the reputation of the officers concerned, forget its constitutional responsibility of ensuring fair investigation in the matter?,” asked the Court.
Interestingly, the State Advocate General Anup Rattan had opposed Kundu’s application for recall of the order to remove him from the DGP post.
On December 26, the High Court had ordered the State government to move the DGP and Superintendent of Police (SP), Kangra, to other posts to ensure fair investigation into a businessman’s allegations of alleged threats to him and his family in connection with a business dispute
The threats were allegedly coming from a retired IPS officer and a senior lawyer. The Court was told that the complainant was getting constant phone calls from the DGP’s office in connection with the dispute.
On the basis of the reports submitted by Superintendent of Police of Shimla, the High Court in its December 26 order recorded that the DGP had been in touch with the business partner of the complainant and had repeatedly tried to contact the latter.
Kundu then moved the Supreme Court which on January 3 granted an interim stay on the High Court order and said that the December 26 order should not be given effect to until the High Court decides the recall application.
During the hearing of the recall application, Kundu’s counsel Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain submitted that the DGP had looked into the issue “in good faith and motivated by principles of police led mediation” after his old acquaintance Senior Advocate KD Shreedhar had told him about the business dispute.
The complainant Nishant Sharma told the Court that Shreedhar and his brother through the DGP were trying to force him to sell his and his father’s shares in a private company.
At this stage, the Court clarified that it would be difficult for it to state which version is correct.
However, it observed that courts in the country have repeatedly laid down that the police officers cannot interfere in civil disputes.
“How a Senior Police Officer like Shri Sanjay Kundu, who ought to be aware of the legal position that his interference in a civil dispute between shareholders of a private company is highly improper, thought he should intervene and mediate between KD Shreedhar and Nishant Sharma (with whom he had no prior acquaintance) and settle their disputes, we are unable to comprehend. This conduct cannot be said to be within his line of duty prima facie.”
The Court also noted that Shreedhar is a senior lawyer and not a poor man suffering any disadvantage.
He can certainly avail remedies available to him at law to resolve his disputes with Sharma and his father and does not need Kundu’s intervention, it added.
“At request of such a person, the attempt of Shri Sanjay Kundu, IPS to attempt to settle the dispute seems to be a colourable exercise of his power and authority prima facie,” the Court opined.
The Court further said that continued interaction between Kundu and Shreedhar for over three months suggests more than a mere acquaintance and possibly longer association or friendship.
Taking note of the circumstances that there was constant communication between Kundu and Shreedhar and Kundu had persistently attempted to call the complainant and placed his hotel under surveillance, the Court said,
“In view of the above undisputed facts, this Court had no choice but to pass the order dt.26.12.2023 since the State Government did nothing in the matter.”
Meanwhile, the Court also refused to recall the order for removal of SP Kangra, Shalini Agnihotri.
On Kundu and Agnihotri’s demand for probe by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the case, the Court agreed with the submissions made by AG and Amicus Curiae that the case does not fall in the category of cases which require the central agency's probe.
The Court directed the State government to ensure effective protection to the complainant and his family under further orders.
It also asked the State to consider forming a Special Investigation Team consisting of Inspector General-level officers to coordinate the investigation in the criminal cases related to the matter.
The Court will hear the case on February 28.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Gupta and advocate Vedhant Ranta appeared as amicus curiae.
Advocate General Anup Rattan with Additional Advocate Generals Rakesh Dhaulta and Pranay Pratap and Deputy Advocate Generals Sidharth Jalta and Arsh Rattan represented the State.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain and advocates Arjun Lall, Aakash Thakur and Aakarsh Mishra represented DGP Sanjay Kundu.
Senior Advocate Shrawan Dogra along with advocate Tejasvi Dogra represented SP Shalini Agnihotri.
