Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.S.MISHRA, S.S.HUSSAINI
Vasanthi - Appellant
Versus
Jaya Prakasha Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 08-08-96
CRIMINAL LAW - IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT, 1956 - SECTION 3 AND 4 - ARREST AND DETENTION OF PETITIONER - ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT IN IMMORAL TRAFFIC - INVESTIGATION BY SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER - REPORT FINDING NO LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE CHARGE - ACTION OF INSPECTOR OF POLICE IN RAIDING SUSPECTED PREMISES WITHOUT OBSERVING FORMALITIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER LAW - FAILURE TO PRODUCE PETITIONER BEFORE COURT IMMEDIATELY - DETENTION AT POLICE STATION FOR MORE THAN 26 HOURS - VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - COMPENSATION AWARDED TO PETITIONER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a practicing advocate, was arrested and detained by the police on the basis of a complaint by the then Public Prosecutor, alleging her involvement in immoral traffic. The petitioner alleged that the arrest and detention were illegal and that she was subjected to humiliation and embarrassment by the police. An investigation by a Special Police Officer found no legally admissible evidence to substantiate the charge against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India had been infringed by the police. The Court held that the Inspector of Police had acted illegally in raiding the petitioner's premises without observing the formalities contemplated under law and in failing to produce her before the Court immediately. The Court also found that the petitioner had been detained at the police station for more than 26 hours without any justification.
Issues: 1. Whether the arrest and detention of the petitioner were illegal and in violation of her fundamental rights. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the violation of her fundamental rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the arrest and detention of the petitioner were illegal and in violation of her fundamental rights. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 476, which held that in case of violation of fundamental right by State's instrumentalities or servants, Court can direct the State to pay compensation to the victim or his heir by way of monetary amends and redressal and this remedy is apart from the private law remedy which the petitioner can seek, if so advised.
Final Decision: The Court ordered the State Government to pay compensation to the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 50,000.00 for the violation of her fundamental rights. The Court also directed the State Government to submit all the reports under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in all the seven (7) crimes registered with the police to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate concerned forthwith for appropriate action in accordance with law. The Court further ordered that there shall be an order of restrain upon Shri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao in visiting the petitioner at her place of abode or at any other place and the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek help of the police administration of the State in case the former is found doing anything to disturb her privacy.
( 1 ) A letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India by the petitioner has been taken up as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on being marked to this Court by the Supreme Court. In her letter to the Chief Justice of India, the petitioner has stated that she is a practising advocate of this Court and a divorcee with two children, who are studying in Puttaparthy. On 27-2-1995, three persons were taken illegally by Rajendra-Nagar Police and allegedly beaten black and blue. Their mother got a petition filed before this Court of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus on 2-3-1995. Sri. E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, who was then the Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has alleged, came to her residence on 6-3-1995, at about 6. 30 p. m. and asked her to withdraw the writ petition as the then Home Minister was interested. When she refused to do so, Sri Bhagiratha Rao threatened her with dire consequences and left her place. She has alleged, "before this incidence, for one and half year Mr. E. V. B. Rao continuously harassing me by regular visits and letters requesting me to marry him and stay as second wife as he was holding PP s post and having respect to his age I could not complain to anybody. " Taking advantage of his office, according to the petitioner, Shri Bhagiratha Rao activated the Inspector and office in-charge of Nallakunta Police Station to arrest her and she was taken to the police station by the latter around 7. 45 p. m. on the same date i. e. , 6-3-1995. She was beaten very badly and was asked to sign on blank papers and when she refused, she was threatened by the Inspector of Police that he could make her stand naked in the police station the whole night. When, however, she strongly protested, she was shifted to Central Crime Station by the Inspector at about 3. 00 a. m. in the morning of 7-3-1995. She was kept at one or the other police station for more than 26 hours and on 7-3-1995, at about 9. 40 pm. , she was taken to the VIth Metropolitan Magistrate s residence and, "without First Information Report, without Crime Number, without charges" the Magistrate granted bail and she was released by 11. 30 p. m. After returning home, she found her scooter-AP-9g-6682 missing, which, according to her version, had been taken away by the police. On the following day, she shifted her residence to Barakathpura. She met some of the Judges of the Court and narrated the incidents to them and filed a petition C. C. No. 168 of 1995, on 13-3-1995, against Shri Jayaprakash Rao, Inspector of Police, Nallakunta, contending that since she had filed the above Habeas Corpus petition, he had falsely filed a criminal case against her and had been saying that unless she withdrew the Habeas Corpus Petition, she would be implicated in false cases. Petitioner has alleged, "pamphlets were distributed by P. P. (Shri Bhagiratha Rao) and Shri Jayaprakash Rao that she was arrested because she was involved in immoral traffic act case and that the Inspector of Police (Shri Jayaprakash Rao) had personally seen her involving in sexual acts with one of his best friends". The letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India has posed, if he (the Inspector of Police) had really done his duty - (1) why he had not sent her/for medical examination; (2) why did he not produce her before the Court immediately; (3) why had he not taken a lady constable and panchas when he entered her residence and why had he not taken her to Court and asserted, "but till now no enquiry has taken place. The then Advocate General concerned the police and tried to compromise to withdraw the case If I don t further proceed and this was posted to 4-4-1995. On 3-4-1995, at about 6. 30 p. m. Mr. E. V. B. Rao came to my residence place with a bundle of pamphlets saying that if I don t oblige his wish he is going to distribute the pamphlets and will never allow the police for compromise saying this he tried to outrage my modesty. When I started shouting my nei
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
