SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Tanuja Roy D/o Lt. Pijoosh Kanti Roy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Rep. by the Commissioner and Secy. to the Govt. of Assam, Department of Home Affairs and Others – Respondents
W.P. (Crl.) No. 1 of 2016
Decided On : 13-07-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ms. D. Phukan and Ms. J. Huda.
For the Respondents: Ms. K.K. Choudhury, Mr. L.N. Dihingia, Mr. J.C. Barman and Mr. A. Matlib.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226, 21 and 32 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 420/406,342/384/385 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 41 A, 161 (1) and 46 - Cheating and dishonesty - Nature of Mandamus - Suitable disciplinary - Compensation/damages - Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India petitioner has prayed - Prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, Call for records and issue a rule calling upon respondents to show cause as to why a writ in nature shall not be issued directing suitable disciplinary action to be taken against the respondent for arrest/confinement of petitioner and for extorting money from her in order to release her and award compensation/damages of for violation of petitioners fundamental rights and for humiliation, harassment and loss of reputation suffered by petitioner and/or pass necessary order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper - Petitioner claims to be an engineer by profession and belongs to a respectable family - Her husband is also an engineer and in connection with his professional work, he resides at - Petitioner resides with her mother at her address as her father had expired – Held, Court would not be guided by the principles, which would be available while determining compensation under the private law - Nature of compensation under both jurisdictions is different as explained above - Fundamental right of petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was violated - Having regard to above, Court is of view that compensation by way of exemplary cost of imposed on State would be just and adequate in facts and circumstances of case - Notwithstanding order of compensation as above, it would also be open to petitioner to avail her remedy under private law to seek compensation, if so advised - In so far criminal case is concerned, it is made clear that this order or any observation made herein would have no bearing on the investigation of the case - Consequently, respondent no. 1, i.e. Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Home Department, is directed to deposit aforesaid amount of before Registrar General of High Court, within a period of 6 weeks from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order - Petitioner to receive the said amount from Registry of Court on proper identification - It would also be open to State to recover said amount from erring officials - Petition is accordingly disposed of

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Ms. D. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. K.K. Choudhury, learned Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Mr. L.N. Dihingia, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and Mr. J.C. Barman, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. Also heard Mr. A. Matlib, learned counsel for respondent no. 6.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"It is therefore, prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, Call for the records and issue a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing suitable disciplinary action to be taken against the respondent nos. 4 to 6 for the arrest/confinement of the petitioner and for extorting money from her in order to release her and award compensation/damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) for the violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights and for humiliation, harassment and loss of reputation suffered by the petitioner and/or pass necessary order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

3. Petitioner claims to be an engineer by profession and belongs to a respectable family. Her husband is also an engineer and in connection with his professional work, he resides at Shillong. Petitioner resides with her mother at her Guwahati address as her father had expired.

4. Petitioner is working as manager in a company called Broadband Net Services Pvt. Ltd. (company). The company is engaged in the business of installation of towers and providing internet connection in the State of Assam.

5. One Mr. Safiqur Rahman Talukdar lodged first information before the Dispur Police Station on 08.04.2015 against the company alleging retention of security money amounting to Rs. 6,30,000/- collected from him for execution of work and dishonour of cheques amounting to Rs. 8,90,000/- issued by the company. On the basis of the first information, Dispur PS Case No. 678/2015 was registered under Sections 420/406 IPC. In the said FIR the main allegation was made against one Smt. Jharna Gogoi Das, wife of Sri Debojyoti Das, who was named as accused.

6. At about 1:00 a.m. of 25.11.2005 at the dead of night three police-men from Dispur Police Station i.e. respondent Nos. 4 & 5 along with a lady constable came to the residence of the petitioner. The two mobile phones of the petitioner were taken over by the policemen, and, thereafter, they took the petitioner to the police station in connection with the aforesaid police case. Though the petitioner and her mother objected to taking her to the police station at such unearthly hour, their objections were brushed aside and petitioner was taken away to the police station by the policemen at about 1:10 at night. Mother was also not allowed to go with the petitioner. After reaching the police station at about 1:40 a.m., she was taken to the MMC Hospital, Panbazar, Guwahati for medical examination. When the petitioner objected to such medical examination the policemen did not consider her plea and forcibly took her to the MMC Hospital. Petitioner was also not allowed to communicate with her husband.

7. Petitioner was brought back from the MMC Hospital to Dispur Police Station at around 03:30 am. Thereafter, she was taken by a lady constable to Ujala Shelter Home, Sixth Mile, Guwahati, where after, she was kept there till 11:30 am. Petitioner was made to share a room with various women, who were arrested and detained in connection with criminal cases.

8. Petitioner was escorted by the police personnel from Ujala Shelter Home, Six Mile, to Dispur Police Station at around 11:30 am in the morning. In the Dispur Police Station, petitioner met her mother, who was waiting for her since 06:00 am in the morning. In the police station, petitioner was questioned by respondent No. 4 in his room. According to the petitioner, an unlawful demand of Rs. 50,0














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top