Back
Imposes ₹3 Lakh Costs on Police For of Will Witness
In a strongly worded judgment that has sent shockwaves through the law enforcement community, the has imposed of ₹3,00,000 on the Investigating Officer and his superior officials for the of a witness in a disputed Will case. The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna did not mince words, declaring the arrest a blatant instance of "" and ordering that the cost be paid from the pocket of the erring officers, not from the state exchequer.
The case arose from a crime registered by the two weeks prior to the judgment. The petitioner, K.N. Mohan Reddy, was arraigned as accused No.2 for offences under Sections 61 (criminal conspiracy), 338 (forgery of a Will), and 340(2) (fraudulent use of forged document) of the . The FIR pertained to a three-decade-old disputed Will and related immovable property documents.
The
The facts that drew the court’s ire were stark. On , the Investigating Officer issued a notice under (BNSS) — a provision that allows a police officer to summon a person to appear before him where arrest is not considered necessary. The notice directed the petitioner to appear at the at 11:00 AM on . However, in the early hours of August 25 itself, police officials arrived at the petitioner’s residence, served the notice, and immediately took him into custody without affording him any opportunity to comply.
Justice Nagaprasanna observed that once the procedural law is set in motion by issuance of a Section 35(3) notice, the only circumstance justifying arrest is a display of non-cooperation by the accused. Since the petitioner’s appearance date had not even arrived, the arrest was manifestly illegal.
Court’s Stinging Observations
The court’s oral remarks during the hearing were particularly scathing. When the Investigating Officer, a Sub-Inspector, appeared in person, Justice Nagaprasanna chastised him:
“Once you set the procedure in motion by issuing notice under Section 35(3), unless he displays non-cooperation, you cannot arrest. Don't you know the law? If it is an influential complainant, you will arrest? ... I have been seeing this pattern of policemen; they take anyone into custody without any rhyme or reason. This should stop forthwith. And how do you stop it? There should be some deterrence.”
The court also questioned the logic of leaving out accused No.1 — the beneficiary of the Will — and arresting the instead:
“If you are a witness and accused No.1 is the beneficiary of the will, you leave him, and the witness to the will you take into custody—is there any semblance of fairness in this police action? ... If you have succumbed to pressure—whose pressure? Why did you arrest? Is this a joke? He (IO) is a scapegoat. Somebody else is controlling him. Somebody else has directed him to arrest this man.”
Why Superiors Were Held Liable
A notable aspect of the judgment is the court’s decision to extend liability to the superior officers at the , including the Officer-in-Charge, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The court held that it was not only the Investigating Officer who was responsible for the atrocious act; the entire police station command structure was equally culpable for .
In its written order, the court stated:
“It is not only the Investigating Officer who is responsible for the atrocious act on their part of taking the liberty of citizens for granted. The entire Police Station is equally responsible. The Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station or the superior who mans the police station or the Assistant Commissioner of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police who has just led the Investigating Officer to behave in a manner blatantly contrary to law are equally responsible for their .”
The court directed that the ₹3,00,000 cost be paid by the Investigating Officer and the superior officials from their own pockets, and not from the state exchequer, emphasizing that public money cannot be used to compensate for illegal acts of individual officers.
Legal Analysis: Section 35(3) BNSS and Arrest
The judgment reaffirms the settled legal position that a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS is a precursor to arrest only if the accused fails to cooperate. The provision mirrors the earlier , which was designed to prevent . The court’s intervention underscores that the police cannot use the notice as a trap to effect an arrest before the specified appearance date. Any such action renders the arrest .
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the underlying dispute was essentially civil in nature — a challenge to a Will — and that the petitioner’s role was merely that of an . As a , he could not be hauled into a criminal investigation without specific allegations of criminality.
“The issue is on the face of it purely civil in nature. Admittedly, the role of the petitioner is that of a witness to a Will. This is not a matter for the police to interfere now unless criminality is projected ... It is a settled proposition of law that a cannot be hauled for investigation, as laid down by plethora of judgments rendered by this Court and the apex court.”
Impact on Legal Practice
This judgment is a significant deterrent against the misuse of arrest powers by law enforcement agencies, particularly in civil disputes masked as criminal cases. The imposition of personal costs on both the Investigating Officer and his superiors sends a clear message that supervisory officers cannot turn a blind eye to illegal arrests. It also reinforces the principle that the police must act within the strict confines of procedural law, especially when dealing with liberty.
For the legal community, the case provides a strong precedent for challenging illegal arrests effected after a Section 35(3) notice. It also serves as a reminder that the courts will not hesitate to hold the entire police hierarchy accountable for systemic failures.
Conclusion
The has not only declared the arrest illegal but has also stayed all further proceedings in the FIR insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The stay, however, does not apply to accused No.1, the beneficiary of the Will. The court also directed the initiation of a departmental inquiry against the Investigating Officer and his superior officials. With this judgment, the court has drawn a firm line against what it termed "," signaling that any future transgression will be met with equally stern consequences.
