Punjab and Haryana High Court Clarifies Role of Warrant Officer in Arrest of Music Producer

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified the limited role of warrant officers in cases involving the legality of arrests, following the controversial detention of Punjabi music producer Pushpinder Dhaliwal. Justice HS Brar of the high court stated that a warrant officer does not possess the authority to adjudicate on the legality or illegality of custody but is instead restricted to conducting searches and reviewing police records.

Pushpinder Dhaliwal, also known as Pinky Dhaliwal, was arrested on March 9 by Mohali police based on allegations of cheating and exploiting Punjabi singer and actress Sunanda Sharma. Dhaliwal, who heads Mad4Music and Amar Audio, was accused by Sharma of financial misconduct that allegedly deprived her of earnings exceeding ₹250 crore, causing significant financial and emotional distress. Sharma’s complaint included claims of unlawful, exploitative, and defamatory actions by Dhaliwal.

READ ALSO  Supreme Court Seeks UP Government's Response on MLA Abbas Ansari's Bail Plea

The music producer’s arrest sparked legal scrutiny after his son petitioned the high court, claiming the detention was illegal. The warrant officer assigned to the case initially reported on the legality of the arrest and confirmed Dhaliwal was detained in connection to the FIR filed by Sharma. However, it was revealed during the court proceedings that Dhaliwal was not shown the grounds of his arrest until seven hours after being taken into custody.

Video thumbnail

The court criticized the warrant officer’s actions, stating he exceeded his jurisdiction by commenting on the merits of the case, a role that goes beyond his ministerial duties. The high court underscored that warrant officers are to conduct searches and gather facts without making legal judgments about the case.

READ ALSO  Justice Sheel Nagu Appointed New Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court

Furthermore, the high court pointed out procedural lapses by the police, noting that since the alleged offenses involved carried a maximum jail term of less than seven years, Dhaliwal should have first been issued a notice to join the investigation, which was not done. The direct arrest without this notice was deemed a violation of Section 35(1)(c) of the BNSS (formerly Section 41(1)(ba) of the CrPC).

READ ALSO  Nainital High Court Seeks State Report on Tender Irregularities at Lalkuan Milk Producers Association
Ad 20- WhatsApp Banner

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles