Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Somnath – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
R1: State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary
R2: C.P. Kakade, Police Inspector, Police Station, Paithan
R3: Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad
R4: Superintendent of Police (Rural), Aurangabad
R5: S.D.P.O., Paithan
Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2600 of 2019)
Decided On : 18-03-2024
Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 142 – Police high-handedness and atrocity – Power of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India to award compensation is undoubtable – In such matters Courts need to take a very strict view – Zero-tolerance approach towards such high-handed acts needs to be adopted as such acts, committed by persons in power against an ordinary citizen, who is in a non-bargaining position, bring shame to entire justice delivery system – There is enough material to indicate that respondent no.2 (Officiating Inspector) did commit excesses against appellant, as the same has also been found in an enquiry by Commission as also relied upon by High Court and such finding has not been varied or interfered with – Court has no hesitation in strongly denouncing such high-handed action by respondent no.2, who being in a position of power, totally abused his official position – Respondent no.2 has superannuated and during course of present proceedings Rs.1,00,000/-, apart from what was ordered by High Court, has also been paid by respondent no.2 from his own pocket to appellant – Matter now requires to be finally given a quietus – Respondent no.2 held liable to pay further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to appellant. (Paras 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against Final Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2018 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No.215 of 2017 by which writ petition filed by appellant was partly allowed and respondent no.2 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- from his own pocket to appellant.
Findings of Court:
Scenario in Delhi Judicial Service Association v State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406 prompted this Court to come down heavily on excess use of force by police. As such, there will be a general direction to police forces in all States and Union Territories as also all agencies endowed with power of arrest and custody to scrupulously adhere to all Constitutional and statutory safeguards and additional guidelines laid down by this Court when a person is arrested by them and/or remanded to their custody.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) :
Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Criminal Writ Petition No.215 of 2017 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was partly allowed and the respondent no.2 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) from his own pocket to the appellant.
BRIEF FACTS:
4. A First Information Report1[FIR.] bearing Crime No.1- 117 of 2015 for an offence punishable under Section 3792[‘379. Punishment for theft.—Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.’] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) was filed by one Mr. Madhukar Vikram Gayake on 14.06.2015 with Paithan Police Station, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad, State of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the “PS”) alleging that on 12.06.2015 the complainant had come to attend the last rites of his brother-inlaw and was standing in a queue in the holy Nath Temple when some unknown persons took away Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), which he was carrying in his pocket, which he realized only after coming out from the temple. The appellant was arrested at 08:30PM in connection with the said crime on 14.06.2015 on the basis of CCTV3[Closed-Circuit Television.] footage showing the involvement of the appellant in the said crime.
5. On 15.06.2015, the appellant was produced before the Magistrate at 4PM and the investigating agency sought police remand on the ground that recovery had been made from the appellant. The request was granted by the Magistrate and he was remanded to police custody till 18.06.2015.
6. On 17.06.2015, the investigating agency prepared a memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 showing recovery of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) from the house of the appellant.
7. On 18.06.2015, the investigating agency produced the appellant before the Magistrate praying for further extension of police custody for two days and the same was granted till 20.06.2015. On 19.06.2015, the appellant was allegedly taken out of the lock-up by the respondent no.2, the then officiating Inspector of PS, in handcuffs and paraded half-naked with garland of footwear around his neck and is said to have been verbally abused with reference to his caste as also physically assaulted by the respondent no.2.
8. On 20.06.2015, the investigating agency did not ask for any further extension of police remand and thus the appellant was remanded to judicial custody till 04.07.2015. On the same day, the appellant filed an application for bail in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paithan, which was allowed on the condition that he would visit Police Station on every alternate day between 1000hrs to 1300hrs till filing of the Final Report. The appellant was not released pursuant to the order due to the respondent no.2 not allowing him to be released and instead had taken the appellant to the PS.
9. Mr. Rahul Raju Kamble, relative of the appellant filed application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paithan, narrating the chain of events and praying for directions to release the appellant and, inter alia, praying for issuance of Show-Cause Notice to the concerned police officer. Thereon, the Magistrate had directed the prosecution to file its reply. However, the appellant was finally released on 20.06.2015.
10. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad (Rural), on complaint made by the appellant and others, directed the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Paithan on 07.07.2015 to initiate inquiry on the entire issue and submit report. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Paithan
Police high-handedness and atrocity – Power of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India to award compensation is undoubtable – In such matters Courts need to take a very strict view.
Point of law : When an innocent person was taken to the police station without arresting him and detained illegally in the custody arid that apart, he was subjected to torture, no criminal antecedent....
Police actions must comply with constitutional safeguards to protect citizens' fundamental rights; any deviation leads to potential accountability.
The judgment establishes the importance of upholding the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the need for a reasonable basis for arrest under the Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of sanction for prosecution as envisaged by Section 197(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the determination that the co....
(1) A fit case to exercise the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.(2) Very entrustment of the investigation into the matter and continuing the ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
