The Patna High Court in the case Kumar Gaurav vs. State of Bihar & Ors observed and has stated that the police, wherein before carrying out a verification exercise, must first be mentioned the name of the complainant, the details of his and the gist of the complaint in the station diary and then the court proceeds for the verification.
In the present case, the court was hearing the plea moved by the local authorized representative and the Manger of Mandolian Jewellers Private Limited. It has also been alleged by him that he has opened his shop, there being the resentment amongst the local jewellery shop owners and with the help of local police, wherein it has also been managed by them to get the premises inspected. Therefore, the court in the case observed that the police officials of Gandhi Maidan Police Station illegally arrested the staff and also took away the daily sale register and the bill book of the shop.
Further, it has also been submitted by him that in the case the police officials have also illegally restrained him from opening his shop and that same has created the feeling of terror amongst his employees.
However, the court in the case was informed that the case has now become infructuous as the shop of the petitioner is closed and the petitioner left Bihar. It has also been submitted by the Officer-in-Charge of the Gandhi Maidan Police Station who was being present in the court that the station diary and it has also been argued by the court that he had gone to the shop of the petitioner to verify a complaint.
The court in the case was also surprised to note that the station diary had no mention of the name of the complainant or the details of the complaint. The bench in the case observed that the kind of visit by the Police disturbs a legitimate businessman. The court observed and has directed that the copy of the order be circulated to the Superintendents of Police in Bihar in order to protect businessmen from this kind of harassment. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application while considering the aforesaid observations and directions. The counsel, Advocate Mr. Anuj Kumar appeared for the petitioner.
