Back
2023 Supreme(Gau) 1360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Sabah Al Zarid, S/o. Late Muazzed Ali - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Assam & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 2783 of 2021
Decided On : 20-12-2023
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Biswas.
For the Respondent: Mr. H. Sarma.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the handcuffing of a person should be justified and in accordance with the law, and violation of this principle can lead to the imposition of compensation as a deterrent and remedy for the violation of fundamental rights.
Headnote:
Handcuffing - Violation of Fundamental Rights - Section 46, 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 220 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Rule 214 of the Assam Police Manual - The court found that the handcuffing of the Petitioner was unjustified and violated the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The court directed the Respondent Authorities to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000 to the Petitioner for violating his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a Law Graduate, was arrested and handcuffed by the police without just cause. He filed a complaint before the Assam Human Rights Commission, seeking compensation for the violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Commission closed the complaint, leading the Petitioner to file a writ petition before the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the handcuffing of the Petitioner was unjustified and violated the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The court directed the Respondent Authorities to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000 to the Petitioner for violating his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether the Petitioner could have been handcuffed and if there was a violation by the arresting officer, and whether the Petitioner was entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the handcuffing of the Petitioner was unjustified and violated the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The court also applied the principles of strict liability and awarded compensation as a deterrent to police officers who do not discharge their duties in the proper manner and/or violate the applicable law.
Final Decision: The court directed the Respondent Authorities to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000 to the Petitioner within a period of 2 months for violating his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
JUDGMENT :
1. The Petitioner herein had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging infraction to Article 21 of the Constitution for violating his basic fundamental rights by the Respondent Authorities for handcuffing the Petitioner without just cause. The Petitioner by way of the instant writ petition has also sought for setting aside of the order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Assam Human Rights Commission in AHRC Case No.3021/2020-21(9).
2. The brief facts of the instant case are that the Petitioner is a Law Graduate who had enrolled his name in the State Bar Council in the year 2008 bearing Enrollment No.486/2008. On 05.10.2016, an FIR was lodged by one Md. Faizul Haque, Home Guard of the Assam Police alleging inter alia that the Petitioner had on 05.10.2006 manhandled him, as the informant did not allow the Petitioner to park his car near his house. The said case was registered and numbered as Panbazar P.S. Case No.435/2016 under Sections 294/325/341/353 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also relevant to take note of that the Petitioner had also filed an FIR against the said Md. Faizul Haque which was also registered as Panbazar P.S. Case No.436/2016 under Sections 294/323/392/511 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the said Md. Faizul Haque had verbally and physically abused the Petitioner and tried to snatch the bag of the Petitioner which contained Rs.10,000/-.
3. After the FIR was lodged by Md. Faizul Haque, a police personnel of the Panbazar Police Station called the Petitioner to the police station on 05.10.2016 and on his visit to the police station, the Petitioner was detained and later on, he was informed that he had been arrested and on the following day i.e. on 06.10.2016, the Petitioner was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) and thereafter, he was sent to judicial custody. It is the further case of the Petitioner that in violation of all mandates of law and dehors the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, the Petitioner was handcuffed in the police station and was taken to the MMC Hospital, Panbazar for his medical checkup in handcuffed condition. Further on 06.10.2016, when the Petitioner was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), he was again handcuffed and on his way back to the police vehicle and was under continuous handcuffed condition throughout his journey from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kamrup (M) at Kachari to Central Jail, Guwahati at Lokhra which is about 20 km.
4. It is further seen from the facts narrated in the writ petition that the case against the Petitioner was charge sheeted under Section 294/325/341/353 on 25.10.2016 and was laid before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kamrup (M) on 01.09.2017. Thereafter, the Petitioner entered appearance and charges under Section 353/323 were framed and the trial proceeded against him. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 4 (four) prosecution witnesses to bring home the guilt against the Petitioner. The Petitioner examined himself as the sole defence witness. Vide a judgment dated 04.06.2020, the Petitioner was acquitted. It is relevant to take note of that the Investigating Officer during the course of his trial had admitted that he had handcuffed the Petitioner.
5. The Petitioner being aggrieved at the act of handcuffing, filed a complaint before the Assam Human Rights Commission on 18.09.2020 vindicating his grievances for violation of his basic human rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The said complaint was registered and numbered as AHRC Case No.3021/2020-21(9). Vide an order dated 30.03.2021, the said complaint so filed by the Petitioner was closed primarily on the ground that the charged officer had expired. The Petitioner therefore being aggrieved has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition for quashing of the order dated 30.03.2021 and for a direction
