Savindra Singh vs. State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Held

The Court considered the submissions of both parties. It found that the dispute involved factual matters, which the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, could not adjudicate upon. Therefore, the Court could not issue any directions to the respondents regarding the possession of the keys or the retrieval of the petitioner's belongings. However, acknowledging the petitioner's counsel's submissions, the Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S.P.), Haridwar. The S.S.P. was directed to take a decision on this representation in accordance with the law, preferably within ten days of its filing. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim.

Facts

The petitioner, who was operating a business from a rented mall, was arrested on August 23, 2017, following an FIR lodged by a member of a 'Kitty' business. He remained in jail for over six months and was released on bail on February 5, 2018. After his arrest, the Investigating Officer allegedly took the keys to the mall and subsequently handed them over to Respondent No. 4, the owner of the building. The petitioner claims that crucial business documents, including tax-related papers, financial data, and stock information, are locked inside the mall, preventing him from recovering borrowed money and filing GST, VAT, and income tax returns. He filed a complaint against Respondent No. 4 on March 15, 2018, but it was unsuccessful, leading to the present writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable for the reliefs sought, considering the alleged involvement of the police in handing over the keys of the petitioner's business premises to the building owner. 2. Whether the Court can direct the return of the keys to the petitioner or facilitate the retrieval of his business documents, given the factual dispute regarding possession and the nature of the property. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable because a police officer took the keys from the petitioner while he was in jail and handed them to Respondent No. 4. The keys should have been returned to the petitioner, or at least the petitioner's belongings should have been returned before possession was given to the owner. The petitioner relies on the principle that the police should not interfere in civil matters of property possession and should facilitate the return of belongings. State's Arguments: The State Counsel contended that the petition is not maintainable for the reliefs claimed. Furthermore, it was unclear whether any material was actually kept inside the mall. The State argued that the petition deserves to be dismissed.