IMPORTANT POINT
The execution of a non-bailable warrant must be based on accurate identification to prevent wrongful detention, but actions taken in good faith under a valid warrant do not constitute an abuse of power.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

The petitioner, who claims to be a tuition teacher by profession, has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 4 to 9 to refrain from harassing the petitioner or members of her family; for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to register criminal cases against respondent Nos. 4 to 9; and for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 1 to 9 to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-to the petitioner as compensation for the illegal arrest and detention of the petitioner by respondent Nos. 4 to 9.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner and her husband are accused in Crime No.573 of 2018 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam district alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation, in brief, is that the husband of the petitioner had obtained amounts from the defacto-complainant and several others promising to secure for them a job in Israel, and after taking the de facto complainant and others to Jordan on the promise that they would be taken to Israel from Jordan, they were brought back to India without offering any job as promised. It is alleged that thereafter, the husband of the petitioner took the de facto complainant and others to Egypt, again promising that they would gain entry to Israel, and according to the defactocomplainant, they were again brought back to India without obtaining for them any job as promised in Israel.

3. According to the petitioner, the allegations in the First Information Statement leading to registration of Crime No.573 of 2018 indicate that there were absolutely no allegations against the petitioner. But, however, she was arrayed as an accused in this case only to pressurize her husband, who is the other accused in the case. The petitioner secured anticipatory bail from this Court in Crime No.573 of 2018 of Eravipuram Police Station. Ext.P2 is the order dated 29-08-2018 in B.A.No.5503 of 2018 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. While matters stood thus, on 16-11-2018, certain Police officials attached to the Eravipuram Police Station reached the residential house of the petitioner and allegedly entered into the house, after breaking open the door, and forcefully caught hold of the petitioner, outraged her modesty and pushed her into a Police jeep in front of her small children, using obscene and filthy language. It is also urged that the Police officials also stated that whatever the High Court or the Magistrate Court say, they will deal with cheats and fraudsters in any manner they like and punishment will also be as decided by them. It is alleged that when the neighbours asked the Police officials as to why the petitioner was being arrested, they were informed that if an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-is given to one Nancy, the petitioner would be released from custody. According to the petitioner, after taking her to the Police Station, she was again abused using filthy language and threatened to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-to the aforesaid Nancy. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P3 newspaper report dated 17-11-2018 to contend that the so called drama of the arrest of the petitioner was later projected as a case of mistaken identity, and after detaining the petitioner in the Police Station till late in the evening, the petitioner was left free to go back to her house. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Police officials of the Eravipuram Police Station and in particular the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police attached to that Police Station at the relevant time had an axe to grind against the husband of the petitioner. It is submitted with reference to the pleadings in W.P(C)No.37828 of 2018, which was a petition filed by the petitioner along with her husband for Police protection, that it is clear from the pleadings in that writ petition, as also from the judgment in that w