Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th November 2007, rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Crl.W.P. No.1086/2002. By the impugned judgment, while allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant, alleging harassment on account of his arrest on the strength of a non-bailable warrant, which had been cancelled, the High Court has directed the delinquent police officer to pay by way of costs to the appellant an amount of `2,000/- from his own account.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts material for adjudication of the present case, may be stated thus:

Some time in the year 2000, one, Mr. Prem Harchandrai filed a complaint, being C.C. No. 163/P/2000, against the appellant, a practicing Advocate, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC"), in relation to some incident alleged to have taken place in the 'Radio Club' at Mumbai, considered to be a club for the elite. When at a preliminary stage, the case came up for hearing before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 7th August, 2002, finding the appellant to be absent, the Court issued a non-bailable warrant against him returnable on 31st October, 2002. The warrant was forwarded to the Colaba Police Station for execution. However, on 12th August, 2002, on appellant's putting in an appearance before the Court, the warrant was cancelled.

4. On 15.8.2002, the complainant approached the Colaba Police Station and insisted on the arrest of the appellant in pursuance of the said non-bailable warrant. Thereupon, respondent No.2, who at that point of time was posted as an Inspector of Police at the Colaba Police Station, directed a constable to accompany the complainant, and execute the warrant. When the appellant was sought to be arrested, he informed the constable that the said warrant had already been cancelled. However, as he could not produce any documentary evidence relating to cancellation of warrant, the appellant was arrested before a public gathering which had assembled at the Radio Club, in connection with the Independence day celebrations. He was produced before the duty Magistrate at about 2 p.m., the same day. The Magistrate directed the release of the appellant. It appears that the appellant obtained the necessary confirmation about cancellation of the warrant on the next day i.e. 16.8.2002 and produced the same before respondent No.2 on the same day. Alleging mala fides and humiliation at the hands of respondent No.2, in collusion with the complainant, the appellant approached the High Court, inter-alia, praying for suitable disciplinary action against respondent No.2; adequate compensa-tion; damages and costs by the said respondent from his own pocket.

5. As aforesaid, the High Court, vide impugned judgment has allowed the writ petition, inter alia, observing thus :

"We therefore, find that there was no justification for issuance of non-bailable warrant on 7th August, 2002 merely because the petitioner had remained absent in Criminal Case No. 163/P/2000 (sic) by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Magistrate could have issued either a notice or a bailable warrant depending upon the facts revealed from the records. Once the warrant was cancelled on 12th August, 2002, it was necessary for the Court to immediately communicate the same to the concerned Police authority so that no inconvenience could have been caused to the person against whom the warrant was initially issued. Once the warrant was sought to be executed on holiday and the concerned police officer was categorically informed that the warrant had already been cancelled and the police officer being fully aware of the circumstances and nature of the case in which warrant had been issued, it was necessary for the police officer to ascertain and to find out whether the warrant which was sought to be executed was still enforceable or had already been cancelled and not to rush to execute t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document