Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for President Of India VS In Re The Special Courts Bill. 1978...
Checking relevance for D. DEVARAJA VS OWAIS SABEER HUSSAIN...
D. DEVARAJA VS OWAIS SABEER HUSSAIN - 2020 4 Supreme 735 : A police officer who misuses power and harasses people in the course of official duty may be subject to criminal prosecution only after obtaining sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. If the alleged act is reasonably connected to the discharge of official duty—such as police excesses during investigation or while in custody—cognizance of the complaint cannot be taken without such sanction. If the complaint is ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous, or instituted with mala fides and ulterior motive, the court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings. The complainant may also seek recourse to law if sanction is refused, but the absence of sanction renders the prosecution invalid at the outset.Checking relevance for RAMAWATAR VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH...
Checking relevance for Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) VS Union of India...
Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) VS Union of India - 2017 1 Supreme 39 : If a police officer misuses power and harasses people, and an offence is committed by such an officer, there is no absolute immunity from trial by a criminal court constituted under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). Even if the officer is subject to the Army Act, criminal proceedings can be instituted in a criminal court under Cr.P.C. in certain circumstances. A judicial inquiry or an inquiry by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) or under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, is necessary to ensure accountability. The use of excessive or retaliatory force by state actors, including police, constitutes a punishable offence and must be thoroughly enquired into to determine whether there was a reasonable connection between the act and official duty. The right to a fair and impartial enquiry is essential to protect individual liberties and uphold the rule of law.Checking relevance for W. B. State Electricity Board VS Dilip Kumar Ray...
Checking relevance for RAJIB RANJAN VS R. VIJAYKUMAR...
Checking relevance for BINOD KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR...
Checking relevance for Arti Chauhan VS State of Madhya Pradesh...
Checking relevance for Gokila Vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep.by The Superintendent Of Police...
Checking relevance for Ravi Babu VS State Of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. ...
Checking relevance for Koppuri Badradri Rama Rao VS State of A. P. , Rep. by its PP...
Checking relevance for Charanjit Sharma VS State of Punjab...
Checking relevance for Ajay Krishna Rastogi Son of Late Saryu Madhav Rastogi VS State of Bihar...
Checking relevance for Ajay Krishna Rastogi, S/o. Late Saryu Madhav Rastogi VS State of Bihar...
Checking relevance for Ram Krishan: Gian Chand VS State Of Delhi...
Checking relevance for D. K. Basu: Ashok K. Johari VS State Of W. B. : State Of U. P. ...
D. K. Basu: Ashok K. Johari VS State Of W. B. : State Of U. P. - 1996 8 Supreme 581 : A police officer who misuses power, harasses individuals, and commits custodial violence or torture violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including protection against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The State is vicariously liable for such acts under the principle of strict liability, and the defence of sovereign immunity is not available. The victim or their heirs may claim monetary compensation through public law proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution. This compensation is compensatory in nature, not punitive, and is in addition to any civil suit for damages. The officer may also face departmental action and contempt of court proceedings for failing to comply with the Court-issued guidelines on arrest and detention, such as not recording the arrest, failing to inform next of kin, or not conducting medical examinations. The Court has emphasized that transparency, accountability, and restructuring of police training are essential safeguards against abuse of power.Checking relevance for Rayapati Audemma VS Pothineni Narasimham...
Checking relevance for Om Prakash VS State Of Jharkhand...
Checking relevance for Jagannath Prasad VS State of U. P. ...
Jagannath Prasad VS State of U. P. - 1954 0 Supreme(All) 73 : A police officer who misuses his power and harasses people can be dismissed from service by the Governor under the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, after a proper enquiry by a Tribunal. The Governor has the power to dismiss a police officer of subordinate ranks at pleasure, subject only to the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which requires that the officer be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. The Disciplinary Rules are validly made under Section 7 of the Police Act, and the Tribunal''''s proceedings must comply with the principles of natural justice, including providing a fair opportunity to defend oneself. If the Tribunal finds the officer guilty of misconduct such as corruption or harassment, the Governor may proceed with dismissal, and the officer''''s challenge to the dismissal may be dismissed if the Tribunal has substantially complied with the Rules and natural justice principles.Checking relevance for Dilshad VS S. R. Sundaram...
Dilshad VS S. R. Sundaram - 2013 0 Supreme(Del) 2111 : When a police officer is accused of misusing power, harassment, and bribery, the aggrieved person has remedies under the law, including approaching the Superintendent of Police or filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The magistrate has discretion to decide whether a complaint requires field investigation or scientific evidence, and if not, may proceed with registration of an FIR. The court emphasized that the petitioner''''s remedies were not limited to a writ petition but included these statutory avenues for redressal.
