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

2010 Supreme(MP) 991

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Sanjay Yadav, J.
K.D.Singh and others - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P.and others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 12882-2009 and Writ Petition No. 4467-2009
Decided On : 28-04-2010

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Brian Dasilva, Sr. Advocate , Mr. Pankaj Dubey, Advocate with him for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 12882/2009
None for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 4467/2009
Mr. Harish Agnihotri, Govt. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1
Mr. Aditya Adhikari, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the demand for copying fees for relevant documents did not violate the petitioners' right to a reasonable opportunity of hearing as guaranteed under Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Headnote:

Human Rights - Violation of Human Rights - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Sections 16, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 294, 553, 332, 336, 224, 225 (Kha) of the IPC - The court discussed the violation of human rights and the recommendations made by the Madhya Pradesh Human Rights Commission. It also analyzed the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved an incident where police personnel were found guilty of violating human rights during the execution of a warrant, resulting in injuries and a fatality. The Human Rights Commission recommended compensation to the victims and action against the responsible police personnel. The petitioners, police officers and the victim, filed separate writ petitions seeking implementation of the recommendations and quashing of criminal cases.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were given a reasonable opportunity of hearing as guaranteed under Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It concluded that the demand for copying fees for relevant documents did not cause prejudice to the petitioners, and therefore, no interference was warranted. The court dismissed W.P. No. 12882/2009 and disposed of W.P. No. 4467/2009, as the recommendations had been implemented and no case was made out for quashing the criminal case.

Issues: The core issue was whether there was a denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as contemplated under Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the demand for copying fees for relevant documents did not cause prejudice to the petitioners, and they were afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the Commission before recommending an action. It emphasized that the rules of natural justice are flexible and must be applied based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Final Decision: W.P. No. 12882/2009 was dismissed, and W.P. No. 4467/2009 was disposed of. The court found that the recommendations had been implemented, and no case was made out for quashing the criminal case.

Judgment

This order shall govern the disposal of W.P. No. 12882/2009 and W.P. No. 4467/2009 as both the petitioners arise out of the recommendations dated 22-2-2008 by the Madhya Pradesh Human Rights Commission whereby on a complaint by one Genda Rani Yadav and the enquiry in the complaints the Commission found the police personnel offending the human rights of the complainant recommended compensation to the victims and action against the police personnels responsible for the violation of human rights.

2. The Writ Petition No. 12882/09 is at the instance of the Police Officers who were held guilty of violating the human rights. Whereas W.P. No. 4467/2009 is by the victim seeking implementation of the recommendations as early as possible. As well quashing the criminal case registered against the petitioner in W.P. No. 4467/2009.

3. The Commission, on the basis of the enquiry into the complaints of breach of human rights of one Genda Rani Yadav tendered the following recommendations : -

xxx    xxx

4. The facts giving rise to the enquiry and the impugned recommendation is the incident which took place on the intervening night of 7/8-12-2006 when a police party under the petitioner who at the relevant point of time was Incharge Police Station, Sarrai Chhatarpur, went to execute a pending warrant of arrest against one Ramshu Yadav @ Ramesh Yadav issued by Judicial Magistrate First Class Navgaon in Case No. 1388/2006. In the process whereof, some altercations took place and the fire shot at in the air by Constable No. 62 Balli Prasad, ricocheted and the pallets hit one Ku. Mendabai, aged about 11 years and Lochan Singh (petitioner in W.P. No. 4467/2009). Ku. Mendabai later on succumbed to the injuries. The incident resulted in lodging of the cases Criminal Case No. 273/2006 was registered against Ramshu Yadav @ Ramesh Yadav under Crime No. 273/2006 for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 294, 553 and 332, IPC. Criminal Case No. 274/06 under Section 336, IPC was registered, against the petitioner. These cases it is stated at bar still pending adjudication.

5. That an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 was filed before the Commission by one Smt. Gendabai alleging that on the intervening night of 7/8-12- 2006 the petitioner (in W.P. No. 12882/2009) along with the police party entered her house and started beating her husband and other male members of the house. It was alleged that, the money from Pheran Singh was snatched and the villagers who under the pretext that the house was under siege of dacoits came to rescue were fired at as a result whereof Ku. Mendabai and Lochan Singh sustained injuries. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 10 lacs and an appropriate legal action against the offenders of human rights.

6. The Commission, after receiving the complaint, directed for an enquiry by order dated 24-2-2007. On 26-5-2007 the Enquiry Officer Shri O.K. Reddy, Dy. Superintendent of Police submitted his report concluding that the mid-night of 7/8-12-2008 at about 12.30 a.m. the then Incharge K.D. Singh (petitioner No. 1 in W.P. No. 12882/2009) reached Village Ganeshpuri to execute permanent arrest warrant and without taking respectable persons along with him entered into the house of absconder Ramshu Yadav and arrested him. The wife of Ramshu Yadav @ Ramesh Yadav Kusma and cousin brother Faren Singh were present in the house. Seeing the police force suddenly and thinking that some ante-social elements entered their house, they raise commotion. Hearing the commotion, the uncle, viz., Lochan Singh and his two sons, mother Gendrani and father Chandrabhan Yadav armed with axes and other weapons attacked the police force and got Ramshu Yadav released. Because of the sudden attack, the police force, who were present in civil dress, felt threatened and then Balli Patel and other fired some bullets, which hit Lochan Singh and Menda Bai, aged about 11 years. Seeing the situation, K.D. Singh (









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top