The main legal point established in the judgment is that illegal house searches infringe upon the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the State is liable to pay compensation for such illegal actions.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. Nalawade, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides by consent for fnal disposal.

2. The present proceeding is fled for declaration that the act of the respondents, police officers, of taking search of the house of the petitioner on the night between 5-5-2018 and 6-5-2018 was illegal and that was interference in the privacy of the petitioner and his family. Relief is claimed of compensation of Rs.10 lakh for infringement of fundamental right, right of privacy. Direction is also sought to prosecute the police officers involved in the house search for offence of trespass and other offences.

3. The incident in question took place on the night between 5-5-2018 and 6-5-2018 at about 2.00 a.m. The search of the house of the petitioner was taken by Newasa Police, District Ahmednagar. According to the petitioner, police had not obtained search warrant for taking such search and ultimately nothing objectionable was recovered from his house. It is contended that during search, one Constable by name Vitthal Gaikwad had tried to plant a country made pistol in his house but due to alertness of the petitioner he could not plant such arm. It is the contention of the petitioner that while leaving the house threats were given by the police to him that they would implicate him in a false crime. It is contended that this act of the police was infringement into his privacy, violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 7-5-2018 he gave complaint to the concerned Tahsildar about the aforesaid illegal act of police but no action was taken. It is contended that he gave complaint to the District Superintendent of Police on 10-5-2018 and copy of the complaint was sent to State Human Rights Commission but no action is taken against the respondents. He had approached this Court by fling Writ Petition No. 841 of 2018. In that proceeding a letter of the District Superintendent of Police Ahmednagar was shown to the Court and it was to the effect that the Sub Divisional Police Officer was appointed to make inquiry. In view of the steps taken by the superior police officers, Writ Petition No.841of 2018 was disposed of by this Court.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the aforesaid inquiry it revealed that the search of the house of the petitioner was taken but there was no search warrant. It is his contention that though illegality was noticed, the Sub Divisional Police Officer did not propose action against the police officers involved in the illegal search. It is his contention that the police officers involved in the house search could not have come together as they were posted at different places for discharge of their routine duties and everything in the action was illegal. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is nothing with the respondents to show that they had received any information against the petitioner on that night or prior to that night and the action taken had no basis. A copy of the report prepared by the Superintendent of Police is produced on the record and other documents like copy of representation are also produced and the aforesaid relief’s are claimed.

6. The Superintendent of Police Ahmednagar has fled reply affidavit. He has contended that from the year 2014 onwards as many as 16 crimes were registered against other persons of that area as they were found in possession of fire arms. He has contended that due to such circumstance there was a probability that persons of that local area were having fire arms and they were involved in illegal activities and so action was taken by police which was on the basis of secret information.

7. It is the contention of District Superintendent of Police that, present petitioner is driver by occupation and against him some crimes were registered prior to the date of action though under sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code between years 2