P Javara Setty S/O Late Sri Putta Deva Setty vs R Shruthi W/O J Naveen Kumar

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 41, 41-A, and 438(3) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 35 - Passports Act, 1967 - Section 10(3) - Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(g), 21, and 22 - Arrest in matrimonial disputes - Legality of Look Out Circular (LOC) and seizure of passport - Compliance with mandatory safeguards for arrest - Public law compensation for violation of fundamental rights - State's vicarious liability - The existence of the power to arrest is distinct from the justification for its exercise. In offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, arrest must not be routine; the officer must be satisfied that arrest is necessary for specific purposes and record reasons in writing. Failure to issue a notice of appearance where arrest is not necessary constitutes a breach of mandatory safeguards and violates the right to personal liberty. (Paras 15.1, 15.10, 15.12)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - An order of anticipatory bail acts as insurance against police custody. A non-bailable warrant cannot be used to defeat the protection conferred by anticipatory bail; where a Magistrate decides that a warrant should issue against a person protected by anticipatory bail, the law mandates the issuance of a bailable warrant. (Paras 14.20, 14.21, 14.22)

(C) Passports Act, 1967 - An Investigating Officer has no independent power to impound or retain a passport in the course of investigation. While a passport may be seized under general law, the power to impound vests exclusively with the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, which is a special law prevailing over general seizure powers. (Paras 14.26, 29.1)

(D) Public Law Remedy - A claim for public law compensation for the violation of fundamental rights is an independent remedy and is not precluded by the initiation of departmental proceedings against the erring officer. The State is vicariously liable for the tortious and unconstitutional acts of its employees. (Paras 18.5, 18.6, 19.6)

Facts of the case:
Two petitioners, a father and son, were involved in matrimonial disputes. The son, residing abroad, was issued a Look Out Circular and arrested upon entering the country despite having a subsisting anticipatory bail order. His passport was subsequently seized by the police. The father, a senior citizen with cardiac ailments who was no longer an accused in the matter, was forcibly taken to a police station and harassed. The criminal proceedings were eventually quashed by the courts. The petitioners sought compensation and action against the investigating officer.

Findings of Court:
The Look Out Circular and the arrest were illegal as the State failed to produce records to justify them, and the arrest violated the conditions of anticipatory bail. The seizure of the passport was without statutory authority. Mandatory safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the necessity of arrest and the issuance of appearance notices were ignored. The father was subjected to illegal detention and harassment, violating his fundamental rights. While the allegation of physical assault was not established in writ jurisdiction, the harassment of a non-accused senior citizen was found to be unlawful.

Issues: Whether the issuance of a Look Out Circular, the arrest of a person protected by anticipatory bail, and the seizure of a passport were legal; whether mandatory safeguards governing arrest were followed; and whether public law compensation is maintainable despite the imposition of departmental punishment on the official.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that arrest in matrimonial disputes cannot be mechanical and requires recorded satisfaction of necessity. Anticipatory bail prohibits detention via non-bailable warrants and ensures immediate release. Police lack the authority to impound passports. Violation of Article 21 entitles citizens to public law compensation, which remains available regardless of disciplinary actions taken by the State against its officers, as these operate in different legal fields.

Result: Writ petition allowed in part. Arrest and LOC declared illegal. Compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 awarded to the son and Rs. 4,00,000 to the father, payable by the State with liberty to recover from the officer.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Matrimonial dispute — Petition alleging illegal arrest, Look Out Circular, passport seizure and police harassment; compensation sought for fundamental-rights violations. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Petitioners alleged abuse of police powers, illegal arrest despite anticipatory bail; police officer asserted lawful arrest under warrant, LOC and statutory powers. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )

3. Illegal LOC, warrantless arrest and passport seizure despite anticipatory bail found; abuse of police power violating Article 21; assault not proved. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )

4. Writ petition partly allowed; compensation awarded to petitioners; State may recover from officer; further disciplinary consideration and general police safeguards directed. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 )

ORDER :

Suraj Govindaraj, J.

1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) issue a writ, order or direction or any other writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 and 5 to accept the finding of the enquiry produced as Annexure-R vide No.27/CB/DCP/11/2015 dated 25.04.2015 and take suitable and stringent action in accordance with law going by the established misconduct of the respondent No.3 keeping the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar produced at Annexure-K.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 and 5 to pay compensation at Rs.5 lakhs each to the petitioners for the violation of fundamental rights by the police by subjecting them to humiliation curtailing the rights guaranteed under the Constitution as also damaging the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 beyond repair to be recoverable from the respondent No.3.

(c) Issue such other order/direction to the State authorities to ensure care and precaution while handling sensitive fragile disputes.

(d) Any other order/directions as this Hon'ble court deem fit and proper considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Brief facts of the case are:

2.1. Petitioner No.1 is the father of Petitioner No.2. Respondent No.1 is the wife of Petitioner No.2 and daughter-in-law of Petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 is the father of Respondent No.1.

2.2. The marriage between Petitioner No.2 and Respondent No.1 was solemnised on 04.12.2011 as an arranged marriage. After the marriage, the couple shifted to England where Petitioner No.2 was employed as an IT consultant.

2.3. According to the petitioners, the expenses relating to the wife's travel to England, including visa and flight tickets, were borne by Petitioner No.1. They contend that no dowry was demanded either before or after the marriage and only customary gifts were exchanged.

2.4. The petitioners further contend that the couple lived harmoniously in England for some time, acquired a residential house jointly, and that the parents of Respondent No.1 also visited and stayed with them.

2.5. It is further alleged that Petitioner No.2 sponsored Respondent No.1's parents to England and purchased a house in their joint names entirely from his own funds.

2.6. The petitioners allege that thereafter Respondent No.1 began making demands for luxury articles, transfer of money, and transfer of Petitioner No.2's business interests in her favour. They further allege that after visiting India in November 2013, Respondent No.1 was influenced by certain relatives, resulting in matrimonial disputes.

2.7. On 10.03.2014, Respondent No.1 lodged a complaint before the Vidyaranyapura Police Station alleging offences under Section 498A IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC against Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and several members of their family. Crime No.76/2014 came to be registered.

2.8. Petitioner No.2 and his brother obtained anticipatory bail on 10.06.2014, the order remaining operative for six months.

2.9. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet only against Petitioner No.2 and his mother, while proceedings against the remaining accused named in the FIR were dropped.

2.10. On 18.07.2014, Respondent No.3 allegedly came to the residence of the daughter of Petitioner No.1 in plain clothes accompanied by police personnel in private vehicles and attempted to take Petitioner No.1 to meet the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

2.11. The petitioners allege that despite intervention by their advocate, Respondent No.3 forcibly took Petitioner No.1 and the mother of Petitioner No.2 to Malleshwaram Police Station, assaulted and manhandled Petitioner No.1, resulting in his collapse inside the police station due to his pre-existing cardiac ailments. He was thereafter treated at K

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Kar) 235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Sri P Javara Setty S/O Late Sri Putta Deva Setty - Petitioner
Versus
Smt R Shruthi W/O J Naveen Kumar - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 30608 of 2015 (GM-POLICE)
Decided On : 04-08-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Kar) 235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUSuraj Govindaraj, J.Sri P Javara Setty S/O Late Sri Putta Deva Setty - PetitionerVersusSmt R Shruthi W/O J Naveen Kumar - Respondent Writ Petition No. 30608 of 2015 (GM-POLICE)Decided On : 04-08-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

Cases Referred (14)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Sri P Javara Setty S/O Late Sri Putta Deva Setty - Petitioner
Versus
Smt R Shruthi W/O J Naveen Kumar - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 30608 of 2015 (GM-POLICE)
Decided On : 04-08-2026