The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has categorically said that a warrant officer has no adjudicatory power to either comment or draw a conclusion with respect to legality or illegality of custody. “…the role of a warrant officer is ministerial in nature since his duty is confined to conducting a search for a person at the said premises and examine all the material available, including contemporaneous record of the police station which may justify the custody,” the bench of justice HS Brar observed on the controversial arrest of Punjabi music producer Pushpinder Dhaliwal.
He was arrested allegedly for cheating and exploiting Punjabi singer and actress Sunanda Sharma on March 9 by the Mohali police and had to be released on March 11 afternoon after the HC declared his arrest illegal. Detailed judgment has been made available now.
In the report, the warrant officer had given a finding with regard to the legality of the arrest of the producer and also concluded that he was in custody in connection with the FIR registered by the singer. However, during the hearing it had come to light before the court that even as he was picked up at 7 pm from his house in Mohali, the grounds of arrest were shown to him seven hours later. The warrant officer was appointed by the high court on March 8 evening upon a petition from son of the music producer claiming the detention illegal.
Such appointments are made by the court upon receiving complaints regarding illegal detention by police or other such agencies. They conduct raids and also hold power to examine record in a given case.
“This court has no hesitation in deprecating the conduct of the warrant officer and in holding that the warrant officer exceeded his jurisdiction in commenting on the merits of the case,” the court further added.
Since the sections invoked had jail term less than seven years, he should have been served upon a notice for joining the probe first, which was not done, the court observed. The police have directly proceeded to arrest the detenu, which is violative of Section 35(1)(c) of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 41(1)(ba) of CrPC), the court stated.
Known as Pinky Dhaliwal, the accused, who runs companies like Mad4Music and Amar Audio, was arrested on the complaint of the 33-year-old singer, who accused Dhaliwal of unlawful, exploitative and defamatory conduct that caused her significant financial loss, mental trauma and reputational damage. “Despite my earnings exceeding ₹250 crore during this period, the accused unlawfully took possession of all my income and usurped my rightful dues. Not a single payment was made to me directly. This blatant financial exploitation has severely impacted my financial stability and well-being,” Sharma had alleged.
