CW-2022-0032Amritsar, PunjabJudgment 22 July 2022

Amritsar Man vs State of Punjab and Others

Varun Kumar alleged his brother [name withheld] was illegally detained at PS B-Division Urban, Amritsar; the warrant officer raid at 00:50 on 09.09.2019 found him in the lock-up, with the detenue claiming custody since 05.09.2019 against the police claim of arrest on 08.09.2019. The Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, on enquiry found illegal detention by SI (Addl. SHO); departmental action forfeited five years approved service with cumulative effect of both the SI and SHO Inspector (lack of supervision), and FIR No.240/2019 u/s 342 IPC was registered with a s.173 CrPC report filed. Relying on Union of India v. Luithukla, the court directed Rs.50,000 compensation to the detenue payable personally by respondent no.6 (SI), made no comment on his challenge to the enquiry, and disposed of the petition. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 22 July 2022 in CRWP No. 788 of 2019, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Amol Rattan Singh, J.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: Sub-Inspector (Additional SHO), Police Station B-Division Urban, Amritsar; Inspector (SHO), Police Station B-Division Urban, Amritsar, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 50,000.

Register number
PB 02 CW 0014
Case reference
CRWP No. 788 of 2019
Court and date
Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Amol Rattan Singh, J.), 22 July 2022
Officer(s) at the material time
Sub-Inspector (Additional SHO), Police Station B-Division Urban, Amritsar; Inspector (SHO), Police Station B-Division Urban, Amritsar
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Finding of the Court (extract)
“it is considered appropriate that the detenue would be paid Rs.50,000/- by respondent no.6 in view of the enquiry conducted, and the affidavits to that effect filed by the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar.” (at para n/a)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 50,000.
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 22 July 2022 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“it is considered appropriate that the detenue would be paid Rs.50,000/- by respondent no.6 in view of the enquiry conducted, and the affidavits to that effect filed by the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar.” (para n/a)

Institutional response

1
22 Jul 2022

Order issued

Concluded
Punjab and Haryana High Court External · Binding

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: CRWP No. 788 of 2019
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.