Allegations of custodial torture and illegal detention involve disputed questions of fact unsuitable for writ jurisdiction under Article 226; the aggrieved party must seek statutory remedies through the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…Issue order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 herein in illegally apprehending, confining and torturing the petitioner in the Respondent No. 2 Police Station as illegal, Arbitrary, against the law and violation of Art. 21 of Constitution of India and further prayed that the this Honble Court may be pleased to declared the inaction of the Respondent No. 3 herein not registering the crime based on the complaint filed by the petitioner herein dt. 06-05-2015 as illegal and against the law and pass............”

Heard Mr.V.Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 unlawfully apprehended the petitioner, confined him in the police station, and subjected him to custodial torture. It is further contended that, despite submitting a representation to respondent No. 3 seeking appropriate action against such illegal acts, no crime has been registered. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions from this Court.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that the allegations regarding illegal apprehension, confinement, and custodial torture is wholly unfounded and devoid of any material basis. It is further contended that multiple criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner’s son in various police stations, and that the present writ petition has been filed with an ulterior motive to obstruct or circumvent lawful criminal proceedings and to avoid disclosure of the whereabouts of the petitioner’s son. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

I have perused the material available on record.

The grievance of the petitioner is predicated on the allegation that a representation was submitted to respondent No. 3 seeking action against the alleged illegal acts of the police. However, a perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the representation annexed to the writ petition appears to have been addressed to the Human Rights Commission, and not to the police authorities as claimed. Apart from the bare assertions made in the affidavit, no independent or corroborative material has been placed on record to prima facie substantiate the allegations of illegal detention or custodial torture.

It is well settled that allegations of custodial violence or illegal detention involve disputed questions of fact, which ordinarily require detailed fact-finding and appreciation of evidence, a process not amenable to adjudication in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such cases, the appropriate course for an aggrieved person is to avail the statutory remedies provided under the criminal law framework. Reference may be made to the principles governing registration of FIR and redressal of police inaction, as laid down in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh , AIR 2008 SC 907, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if a person has a grievance regarding non-registration of a case or improper investigation, the remedy lies in approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These provisions now stand substantially incorporated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In the present case, the material on record does not disclose that the petitioner has approached the higher police authorities under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., or the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C., seeking appropriate relief. In the absence of such recourse, and in view of the disputed factual matrix, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

However, having regard to the nature of the allegations, liberty is reserved to the