SURESH(Not Applicable) NEENA DUTTA, ,Saloni Nee Susham Lata,NAVLESH VERMA,SUNIL K BANYAL vs STATE(Not Applicable) — CWP/6542/2011

Case under Constitution of India. Disposed: --Disposed Off on 02nd September 2013.

Case disposed Next hearing 02-Sep-2013

CNR: HPHC010089812011

Filing Number

CWP/8929/2011

Filing Date

12-Jul-2011

Registration No

CWP/6542/2011

Registration Date

01-Jan-2011

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

02-Sep-2013

Nature of Disposal

--Disposed Off

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURESH(Not Applicable) NEENA DUTTA, ,Saloni Nee Susham Lata,NAVLESH VERMA,SUNIL K BANYAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE(Not Applicable)

    Adv. B.C.NEGI,RESPONDENT NO.5 ,RESPONDENT NO.6,AJIT SINGH SAKLANI,HAMENDER CHANDEL,AG AMIT SINGH CHANDEL 1123

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Jun-2026

    Registrar Judicial

  3. 02-Sep-2013

    Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv SharmaView PDF

    Summary of CWP/6542/2011 - Suresh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh Court Decision: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Date: 2 September 2013 Facts The petitioner filed multiple complaints (2004-2009) against respondents No.7 and 8 regarding encroachment on 60 bighas of government and common village land. When no action was taken, the village Mahila Mandal vacated the land with help from Panchayat and Forest Department. However, respondents No.7 and 8 re-encroached. In retaliation, respondents No.7 and 8 filed a false complaint against the petitioner on 7 July 2009, alleging he beat their niece. This triggered arrest orders under Sections 107 and 151 CrPC. The petitioner was arrested, detained in jail from 10-13 July 2009 (over 72 hours), and ordered to furnish bail and surety without proper procedure. Key Findings The court held that respondents No.4, 5, and 6 (magistrate and police) violated mandatory provisions of Chapter VIII CrPC by: 1. Failing to follow Section 107-116 procedure: No written order under Section 111 was issued setting forth the substance of information received 2. Illegal detention: Detention exceeded 24 hours (Section 151(2)) without legal authority 3. Improper bail order: Respondent No.5 ordered bail without complying with Sections 111-116(1) 4. Mala fide action: The entire exercise was undertaken at the behest of respondents No.7 and 8 to harass the petitioner Court's Decision The court: - Quashed orders dated 7.7.2009, 10.7.2009, and 13.7.2009 - Awarded compensation of ₹2 lakhs to the petitioner - Suspended respondents No.4 and 5; directed disciplinary action against respondent No.6 - Ordered action against the petitioner's father and respondent No.7 for government land encroachment within 3 months This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 02-Sep-2013

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 02-Sep-2013

    For Pronouncement Of Judgment

    Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma

  6. 23-May-2013

    Honourable Mr. Justice Rajiv SharmaView PDF

  7. 12-Mar-2013

    Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjay KarolView PDF

  8. 12-Jul-2011

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/6542/2011

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CWP/6542/2011 - Suresh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh Court Decision: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Date: 2 September 2013 Facts The petitioner filed multiple complaints (2004-2009) against respondents No.7 and 8 regarding encroachment on 60 bighas of government and common village land. When no action was taken, the village Mahila Mandal vacated the land with help from Panchayat and Forest Department. However, respondents No.7 and 8 re-encroached. In retaliation, respondents No.7 and 8 filed a false complaint against the petitioner on 7 July 2009, alleging he beat their niece. This triggered arrest orders under Sections 107 and 151 CrPC. The petitioner was arrested, detained in jail from 10-13 July 2009 (over 72 hours), and ordered to furnish bail and surety without proper procedure. Key Findings The court held that respondents No.4, 5, and 6 (magistrate and police) violated mandatory provisions of Chapter VIII CrPC by: 1. Failing to follow Section 107-116 procedure: No written order under Section 111 was issued setting forth the substance of information received 2. Illegal detention: Detention exceeded 24 hours (Section 151(2)) without legal authority 3. Improper bail order: Respondent No.5 ordered bail without complying with Sections 111-116(1) 4. Mala fide action: The entire exercise was undertaken at the behest of respondents No.7 and 8 to harass the petitioner Court's Decision The court: - Quashed orders dated 7.7.2009, 10.7.2009, and 13.7.2009 - Awarded compensation of ₹2 lakhs to the petitioner - Suspended respondents No.4 and 5; directed disciplinary action against respondent No.6 - Ordered action against the petitioner's father and respondent No.7 for government land encroachment within 3 months This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case