In a criminal writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking issuance of mandamus to command the State through the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Lucknow, to ensure an inquiry into the matter by any superior police officer, a Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar allowed the petition with costs and directed the State to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the petitioner.
The petitioner’s case was about illegal detention in police custody for 24 hours from 26-11-2022 to 27-11-2022. After orders dated 14-03-2023, the petitioner’s first relief seeking quashing of an inquiry report dated 28-12-2022 submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Handia, Prayagraj, to the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, discarding the petitioner’s case of illegal detention.
The petitioner was living in Varanasi and had gone to his village Sidhwar in Prayagraj to look after his agricultural property. On 26-11-2022, the petitioner went to take care of his paddy crop and, upon return, found that the then In-Charge of the Police Outpost Baraut, Handia, Prayagraj, had entered his house. Without any information, he dragged the petitioner out of his house and took him to the police outpost. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent to police station Handia and on the way, he repeatedly asked why he was being taken, but was given no reason. The petitioner was then put in lockup for 24 hours.
The petitioner alleged that during that period, he asked to be set at liberty but the In-Charge demanded a bribe of Rs. 20,000/-. Despite efforts from the petitioner’s younger brother, the petitioner could not be released and it was alleged that he was released from legal custody on 27-11-2022 at 4 PM only after being forced to pay the bribe.
The petitioner’s son, a Delhi-based advocate, addressed various complaints to the Chief Minister of U.P., the Director General of Police, U.P., and the Police Commissioner, Prayagraj, but to no avail since the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Prayagraj, submitted a report rejecting the petitioner’s complaint on specious grounds without hearing him. The petitioner also objected to the proceedings drawn against him under Section 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stating that it was a cover up to justify the petitioner’s illegal detention. After notice was issued in the present case, a counter affidavit was filed by the Additional District Magistrate, Etah whereby the 5th respondent had accepted the folly in initiating proceedings under Section 107/116 concerning a matter of domestic violence.
The Court stated that what was reported to the police was, at best, a case of domestic violence or domestic squabble and that there was nothing based on which an FIR or even an NCR could be registered. It was said if that could not be done, the scope of security proceedings under Section 107/116 and all other relevant provisions of Chapter VIII of CrPC would not be attracted. The Court noted that in his counter-affidavit, the In-Charge had not specifically denied the allegation of the illegal detention.
Further, it was noted that the In-Charge had acknowledged a complaint against the petitioner by his daughter-in-law regarding domestic violence and thereafter, the In-Charge stated that both parties had mutually compromised the matter without any pressure. Noting that the matter was of domestic violence, the Court stated that the police had little business unless there was a definite cognizable offence committed. It was said that if the matter was only of domestic violence, the daughter-in-law should have moved the Magistrate for appropriate relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Court stated that the In-Charge was neither a spiritual guru nor a panch parmeshwar to whom both parties would head out voluntarily to submit their dispute for guidance and amicable settlement. It was said that there was a gaping flaw in his account. However, the Court refused to go into the allegations of bribery and said that the same was to be examined and determined by the disciplinary authority/police/vigilance establishment/Anti-Corruption Bureau.
The Court was convinced that the In-charge had recklessly violated the most fundamental essence of Article 21 by dragging the petitioner out on a complaint that he was not authorised to act upon and then taking him into custody. It was stated that the Section 107/116 CrPC proceedings initiated against the petitioner was a measure taken out of panic to raise a semblance of defence for all that the In-charge had done.
The Court remarked that at this stage, ideally, cases of such illegal detention must go to courts of ordinary original civil jurisdiction. However, it was said that wherever action of administrative authorities is the subject matter even in cases where fundamental rights may have been violated, the Civil Judges in the State have lost the working authority to try such suits and award compensation, which is why it is in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to award compensation for such acts. The Court stated that such compensation awarded has to be ad hoc in nature.
Further, the Court stated that even if the relief sought is granted to the petitioner for an inquiry by another senior police officer, it would not remedy the wrong suffered by the petitioner. It was stated that the mere absence of a formal relief in a matter which is as fundamental as the most brazen violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right in its most nascent form would not deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to grant necessary relief to remedy the violation of that fundamental right.
The Court said that in cases where a citizen moves ahead to enforce his right, it becomes the Court’s duty to enforce what is already declared to be a right under the Constitution because of the presence of officers all around who believe that the violation done by them would go unnoticed, more often than not.
Thus, the Court held that the petitioner was illegally deprived of his liberty by a police officer in the colour of exercise of State’s authority, for which he was to be given monetary compensation. The Court ordered respondents 1, 2, and 3, by mandamus, to pay Rs. 25,000/- as ad hoc compensation together with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner for his illegal detention. The Court also granted liberty to the State to recover the amount from the In-charge in any manner they deem appropriate, including deduction from his remuneration.
The compensation was ordered to be paid within thirty days. The judgment was directed to be communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, and the then In-Charge, Police Outpost Baraut, Prayagraj.
