Law enforcement officers are accountable for wrongful arrests, and similarity in names does not justify such actions, especially when significant discrepancies exist.

Order

06/02/2024

This matter is taken up for final disposal at the order stage in view of the earlier order dated 05.01.2023.

By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.03.2003 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kota, whereby, a penalty of censure has been imposed upon him. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 24.05.2004 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Kota Range, Kota, whereby the departmental appeal filed by him against the order of penalty dated 31.03.2003 was dismissed and so also assailed the order dated 18.06.2008, whereby the reviewing authority dismissed the review petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was served with the memorandum of charge for a charge of arresting one person on warrants issued against some other person. He further submits that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority has not considered the report of the Superintendent of Police submitted to the Human Rights Commission etc. stating that it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that for a bona fide mistake, issuance of memorandum of charge to the petitioner was also illegal and arbitrary.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority has also not taken into consideration the inquiry report dated 06.10.2002 conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Ramganj Mandi and an affidavit filed by the complainant that he does not want any action against the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the charge against the petitioner is very serious that he arrested a wrong person in the name of warrants issued against some other person and because of that the innocent person has to suffer custody for two days and he was released by the Judicial Magistrate after noticing the fact that the petitioner has arrested wrong person.

Considered the submissions made by counsel appearing for the parties.

It is neither in dispute nor the counsel for the petitioner denies the fact that petitioner arrested one person in the name of warrants issued against some other person and because of that the innocent person has to suffer the custody for two days and he was released by the Judicial Magistrate after noticing the fact that petitioner has arrested some wrong and innocent person who has nothing to do with the alleged crime.

Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in issuance of charge-sheet, disciplinary proceedings or in the decision making process by the disciplinary authority and so also reviewing authority.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the disciplinary authority and appellate authority have not considered the inquiry report conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramganj Mandi, which is enclosed as Annexure-10 along with the additional affidavit.

On perusal of aforesaid inquiry report, this fact has been verified that the petitioner arrested an innocent person in place of some other person against whom warrants were issued. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the person was arrested because of similarity of name and father’s name etc.

On examination of material available on record, it can be very well said that the petitioner cannot escape from the accountability on the grounds that the arrest was made only because of similarity of name and father’s name. The age of the person who was arrested is about 26 years whereas, the warrant was issued against the person whose age is about 52 years and this material fact was ignored by him. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that because of bona fide mistake of the petitioner, the innocent person was arrested and for that he should be exonerated by the authorities.

Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the complainant himself has filed an affidavit (Annexure-12) that he does not want any action against the petitioner.

The affida