J U D G M E N T

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner for taking appropriate punitive action against the respondent for violation of fundamental rights of petitioner under Article 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India caused by not adhering to statutory guidelines necessary to be followed before arresting a person and thereby causing immense mental and physical harassment to the petitioner and also for giving a compensation of Rs.20 lacs towards the torture caused to him.

2. Factual matrix of the case is:-

FIR No. 90/2010 under Section 498A/406 IPC dated 10th April, 2010, PS North Rohini was registered on the complaint of Smt. Deeksha Bhandari pursuant to the recommendation of CAW Cell, Outer District, Delhi. Smt. Deeksha Bhandari alleged in her complaint that she was married with the petitioner Sh. Amit Bhandari on 27th June, 2009 at Delhi. Her husband is based in Pune working in a lawyer’s company. Soon after marriage, her mother-in-law and her husband started taunting and abusing her and her parents over the quality of things provided by them in the marriage. Her mother-in- law took away all the jewellery including Mangal Sutra. She was continuously subjected to cruelty on account of dowry. On the demand of her husband, her father has deposited Rs.1 lac in the account of her husband but the cruelty continued. On 28th August, 2009, her husband abused her and gave her beatings for not bringing enough and quality things from her parents. As such, the FIR was registered.

3. The punitive action against the respondent is sought basically on the ground that in pursuance to the complaint lodged by wife of the petitioner Deeksha Bhandari, FIR was registered against the petitioner. He had filed an application for anticipatory bail wherein direction was given to serve seven days notice of pre-arrest. However, without serving pre-arrest notice, respondents No.2&3 visited the house of parents of the petitioner on 17th June, 2010 in order to arrest him without any arrest warrant or search warrant. The respondents were very well aware that petitioner was residing in Bangalore, as such, there was no need to visit Pune to search the petitioner. It was, however, alleged by the respondent that they had come to Pune in order to serve pre-arrest notice. If that was so, the notice could have been sent by registered post as was earlier done while sending notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. Without any arrest warrant or search warrant, house of the parents of the petitioner was raided only with a view to harass the petitioner and his family members and to pressurise them to extort money. In the daily diary entry, it is nowhere mentioned that they were visiting Pune to serve pre-arrest notice. On the contrary, the DD entry merely states that the purpose of visit was investigation.

4. Due to illegal acts of the respondents in raiding the house of petitioner at Pune on 17th June, 2010, father of the petitioner was forced to travel from Bangalore to Pune in ill condition which resulted in mental trauma. He was a heart patient. Due to mental trauma and harassment done by the respondents, father of the petitioner suffered a massive heart attack and he passed away on 1st July, 2010.

5. The petitioner preferred a private complaint bearing Crl. Misc. Application No. 601/2010 before learned JMFC Cantonment, Pune for the illegal raid and harassment conducted by the respondent at Pune due to which his father passed away. The learned JMFC directed for investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter processes were issued against the respondents and the complainant for knowingly causing death of father of the petitioner. The respondent filed criminal writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Vide order dated 19th December, 2012, the Bombay High Court allowed the application preferred by the respondent and quashed the issuance of process. The petitioner has filed spec