IMPORTANT POINT
The compensation could be granted in public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution either because of the mala fide action of the police for lodging false prosecution or because of the humiliation, torture by the police in police custody or custodial death of a citizen.

C.L. Soni, J.

1. The following are the prayers made in paragraph No. 48 of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

"A. Admit this petition;

B. Be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent State to frame appropriate guideline on the issue involve in the present case and thereby to fix the accountability of the officers concern and thereby circulate the copy of such guideline of circular to all the police station in the State of Gujarat and also to all the District Collector in the State of Gujarat for its effective implementation;

C. Be please to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the State Government to hold inquiry in connection with the entire episode of false implication of the petitioner and the role played by the officers of the State to ruin the career of the petitioner;

D. Allow this petition by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction awarding a compensation of Rs. 50 lacs to the petitioner and his family members towards the established violation of fundamental rights, harassment, mental agony, damage to the social reputation and damage to the political career of the petitioner and his family members in the interest of justice;

E. Grant such other and further relief/s as deemed fit in the interest of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case."

2. The premise on which the above prayers are made is that the petitioner was maliciously roped in Criminal Case being CR No. I-113 of 1990 registered with Dhrol-Jodiya Police Station, Dist.- Jamnagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 452, 504, 506(2) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the 'Penal Code') as also under Sections 3(2)(5) and 3(1)(10) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 ('Atrocity Act'). It is averred in the petition that from the day, the petitioner was falsely implicated in above said offences, the petitioner made representations for appropriate investigation with specific request to investigate that the false case was created against the petitioner. It is further averred that after the petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case, the petitioner had to face trial which ultimately resulted in acquittal with a finding that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case concocted against the petitioner. Such acquittal order was carried in appeal before this Court however, the appeal was dismissed and the order of acquittal was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.

3. Learned advocate Mr. SK Patel for the petitioner submitted that on account of malicious prosecution lodged against the petitioner, fundamental rights of the petitioner were grossly violated. He submitted that the Court below while passing the judgment of acquittal has given finding that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case. He submitted that the Court below has recorded in acquittal order that the statements of the real witnesses were not recorded by the police and the investigate was done in wrong direction with deliberate intention to make the false criminal case more serious whereby liberty of the petitioner as also the right to live with dignity available under Article 21 of the Constitution were violated and, therefore, the petitioner has become entitle to get compensation from the State as prayed for in the present petition. He has relied on the judgment in the case of Dr. Mehmood Nayyar Azam V. Stat of Chhattisgarh, reported in AIR 2012 SC 2573 and in the case of Nilabati Behra V. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1960. Mr. Patel submitted that the finding recorded in the order of the acquittal is not the sole basis to claim compensation in the present petition but it is an additional factor to point out that his fundamental rights were grossly violated. He submitted that right from the beginning, after the FIR