SC Agrees To Hear On Mar 17 Plea Of Chandigarh Administration Against HC Order To Probe UT Police Officials

The Supreme Court today said that it will hear the plea of the Chandigarh administration on March 17 challenging an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to register an FIR and set up an SIT to probe the alleged abduction of a dentist by UT police personnel to prevent him from appearing in the court.

A bench comprising of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UT administration, that the court hasn’t read the entire case files and would take up the matter on Friday.
Mehta said that this matter needs to be heard urgently as an SIT has been constituted by the Punjab police pursuant to the direction of the high court and there could be arrests in the case.

The chief justice said that “No, don’t worry. Tell them that we are seized of the matter and we would take up the matter on Friday.”

Mehta said the case pertains to Mohit Dhawan, against whom a criminal case was lodged after a Nairobi national accused him of cheating her when she visited India to get dental implants from his clinic during 2017-18.

In the case, when Dhawan went to mark his presence before a magistrate’s court, he was allegedly abducted by the Chandigarh police team, who claimed that he got arrested in connection with another case.

Mehta stated that the high court directed an FIR to be registered against police officials and an SIT to be constituted headed by an SSP rank officer to investigate the role of Chandigarh police officials.

On March 3, the high court asked the Punjab DGP to constitute the SIT within a week.

The HC had said that “Considering the fact that this case not only has the potential to shake the confidence of the common man in the administration of justice, but if incidents, as alleged by the petitioner, are found to be true, the conduct of police officers would amount to subverting the course of justice by causing interference in the implementation of orders passed by the courts.”