Suresh Pochanna Kurollu vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Suresh s/o Pochanna Kurollu Age 25 years, Occ : Education, R/o Tanaji Nagar, Nanded. ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Copy to be served on Government Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad.

2. The Superintendent of Police, S. P. Office Vazirabad, Nanded.

3. The Superintendent of Police, S. P. Office, Karimnagar, A. P.

4. Hanmantrao Banduke, Head Constable B. No. 1049 of Bhagyanagar Police Station Nanded.

5. Laxman Doiwad Constable B. No. 1673 of Bhagyanagar Police Station Nanded.

6. Police Inspector, One Town Police Station, Karimnagar, A. P.

7. G. Krishna Driver, (Home Guard) R/o Rekurthy, Tq. & Dist. Karimnagar.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -2- 8. P. Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sammaiah S.I. Police, P.S. N.T.P.C., Gandawari Khani Mandal, Gandawari Khani, District Karimnagar, A. P.

(Respondent no. 8 deleted as per Court's order dated 19.07.2021)

9. The Home Secretary, Secretariat Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (A.P.) ... Respondents

...... Mrs. Maya R. Jamdhade, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Mahendra M. Nerlikar, APP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5. Mr. R. R. Imale & Mr. S. P. Chapalgaonkar, Advocates for respondent No.7. ......

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND S. G. DIGE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 28.07.2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 03.09.2021

JUDGMENT (PER V. K. JADHAV, J.) :

1. In the instant petition, the petitioner prays for compensation

on account of the illegal arrest and detention by Karimnagar I-

Town Police Station at Karimnagar (State of Andhra Pradesh).

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::

CriWP358-2002.odt -3- a. The petitioner is at present a practicing lawyer at Nanded

District Court. However, at the time when he was illegally arrested

and detained by respondent nos. 6 and 7, he was a student of law

collage at Nanded. The petitioner is having five brothers, out of

them two were married at the relevant time and petitioner's second

elder brother, namely, Shyam, got married in the year 1996 with

one Saritha, whose parental house is situated at Karimnagar,

Andhra Pradesh State. After marriage, said Saritha had cohabited

with her husband i.e. the elder brother Shyam for six months at

Nanded. Thereafter, Saritha went to Karimnagar at her parents'

house without any reason. Though the petitioner's brother had

tried to take Saritha back to the house at Nanded, she refused to

come with him. Consequently, the brother of the petitioner had

filed HMP No. 93/1997 before the Civil Judge Senior Division,

Nanded for restitution of conjugal rights and even though notices

came to be issued to Saritha, she did not appear in the said

proceedings.

b. Meanwhile, Saritha filed a complaint against the petitioner's

brothers, namely, Shaym and Ravi, and petitioner's mother and

father under Section 498-A of IPC with Karimnagar I-Town Police

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -4- Station. On 23.01.1998, the police of Karimnagar I-Town Police

Station, State of Andhra Pradesh, namely, G. Krishna, Home Guard

B.No. 1768 (Traffic Police) along with police personnel having B.

Nos. 2485 and 2685 had come to the house of the petitioner at

4.00 am to effect his arrest. However they returned back because

respondent no.6 did not inform to the local police station i.e.

Bhagyanagar Police Station at Nanded. At about 7.00 a.m.,

respondent no.6 along with respondent nos. 4 and 5 came at the

house of the petitioner when petitioner was going to the law

collage to attend classes. The petitioner was arrested by respondent

nos. 4, 5 and 6 in connection with the said crime registered under

Section 498-A of IPC. He was shown a copy of the FIR. According

to the petitioner, his name was not included in the list of the

accused persons and though he had pointed out the same to

respondent nos. 4 to 6, his arrest was effected. Respondent nos. 4

to 6 had not only arrested him, but ill-treated him. After his arrest,

the petitioner was brought to Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded,

where he was subjected to torture. The petitioner was forcibly put

in a private jeep and was taken to Karimnagar I-Town Police

Station in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He was confined in

Karimnagar I-Town Police Station from 23.01.1998 to 31.01.1998

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -5- without giving any information to the petitioner's relatives and also

without any reasonable cause and reason.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the

petitioner was not arraigned as an accused person in connection

with crime no. 496/1997 for the offence punishable under Section

498-A of IPC, he was arrested from his house in connection with

the said crime. He was initially taken to the Bhagyanagar Police

Station, Nanded. As per the extract of the station diary of

Bhagyanagar Police Station, the brother of the petitioner, namely K.

Raju, got information about illegal arrest of the petitioner and he

was taken away to the Karimnagar District. Said brother K.Raju

had therefore filed an applications to respondent nos. 2 and 3

narrating the aforesaid incident. A copies of the said applications

dated 23.01.1998 are annexed to the petition and marked Exhibit

"C-Collectively". Even then the respondent nos. 2 and 3 did not

take any cognizance of the above said applications and did not

make any inquiry regarding illegal arrest of the petitioner effected

by respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6. Learned counsel submits that when

the petitioner was brought to the Bhagyanagar Police Station,

Nanded, respondent nos. 4 and 6 had given inhuman treatment to

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -6- the petitioner by extending beating with fist and kick blows and

also abused him by using filthy language. Learned counsel submits

that respondent no. 6 kept the petitioner illegally in his custody for

8 days without producing him before the Judicial Magistrate and

also without furnishing any information to the petitioner's relatives

about his arrest. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner and

his family members all are educated and law abiding persons. The

petitioner himself was a student of law collage at Nanded. The

petitioner was mentally shocked due to the behaviour of the

responsible police officers. The petitioner's father had frequently

made applications to the authorities like the Collector of Nanded,

the Chief Minister, the MLA of Nanded and also respondent nos. 2

and 3 referring the same subject matter for making an inquiry into

it. However, no one had taken cognizance of his applications. The

Petitioner is thus claiming an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards

compensation for his illegal arrest and unlawful detention for the

period of 8 days.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to substantiate

her contention, placed reliance on the following cases.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::

CriWP358-2002.odt -7-

1. D. K. Basu v. State of W. B., reported in AIR 1997 SC 610.

2. The State of Maharashtra v. Shri. Sagar Balu Ubhe, reported in 2014 All MR (Cri) 1010.

3. Laxman Dattatraya Dahiphale v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 754.

4. Vachhalabai w/o Bharat Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. [Criminal Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2018 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 17.10.2019]

5. Learned APP for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 submits that

on 23.01.1998, respondent no. 4 was on P.S.O. duty at

Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded till 08.00 a.m. His duty as

P.S.O commenced from 20 hrs on 22.01.1998. On 23.01.1998

around 6.00 a.m., two police constables (B. Nos. 1768 and 2485)

from Karimnagar I-Town Police Station approached to the

Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded and informed him that they

had come to Nanded for investigation in crime no. 496/1997

registered with Karimnagar I -Town Police Station under Section

498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::

CriWP358-2002.odt -8- Accordingly, respondent no.4 had taken entry in the Police Station

diary at serial number (9). The said constables accordingly

proceeded towards the house of the accused and came back at

07.05 hrs. along with the petitioner Suresh. Those two Police

Constables informed him that they are taking petitioner Suresh to

Karimnagar for further investigation into the crime. Thus,

respondent no.4 had taken entry to that effect in the station diary

at serial number (11). Learned APP submits that Exhibit R-1 is the

copy of extract of the station diary. Learned APP submits that

around 10.00 a.m., one Raju Pochanna (brother of the petitioner)

had filed a complaint at Bhagyanagar Police Station that said

constables from Karimnagar had taken away his brother Suresh

without ascertaining whether he is accused in crime no. 496/1997

registered at Karimnagar Police Station. Learned APP submits that

the entry about his complaint had also been taken in the station

diary by P.S.I. K.S.Patil, who was the P.S.O. at the relevant time.

Learned APP submits that before the police could find out the

whereabouts of petitioner Suresh, he was already taken to

Karimnagar by the constables from Karimnagar I-Town Police

Station. Learned APP submits that respondent no.4 had not

accompanied the constables from Karimnagar I-Town Police Station

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -9- to the house of the petitioner and respondent no. 4 had not abused

or beaten the petitioner in Police Station. He being the P.S.O., he

could not have left the Police Station at all until his duty was over.

Similarly, respondent no.5 was on lock-up guard duty and therefore

he also could not have left the Police Station. The petitioner has

made false allegations about it. Learned APP submits that the

petition against these respondents is therefore misconceived and

deserves to be dismissed.

6. Learned APP, in order to substantiate his contention, placed

reliance in a case Sandeep Kumar v. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)

[W.P. (Crl.) No. 2189/2018 decided by the Division Bench of the

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi on 12.12.2019].

7. By order dated 12.03.2004, this Court by recording absence

of respondent nos. 3, 6 and 7 to 9 though duly served, granted rule

returnable after 10 weeks. After completion of service, this Court,

by noticing absence of respondent nos. 3, 6, 8 and 9 even after rule

service, by order dated 08.02.2010 partly allowed the petition as

against respondent nos. 3, 6, 8 and 9 and thereby held that the

petitioner would be entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -10- compensation for his illegal arrest and detention by Karimnagar

Police Station and the amount to be paid by respondent no.9 and

the same is directed to be recovered, if necessary, from respondent

nos. 3, 6 and 8. However, respondent no. 8 filed Criminal

Application No. 2287 of 2010 in this petition for recalling the

aforesaid order dated 08.02.2010. By order dated 22.01.2013, this

Court allowed the said application and recalled the order dated

08.02.2010 and restored the petition.

8. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.01.2013 restoring

the petition, the petitioner herein approached the Supreme Court

by filing Special Leave Petition No. 801 of 2014. It is not clear as to

whether said SLP has been disposed of or not, however, by order

dated 20.02.2020 when the matter was called out for hearing, the

Supreme Court has observed that no stay has been granted in the

matter and requested this Court to proceed with the hearing of the

case itself. Thereafter, though the matter was listed on various

dates, the same could not be heard finally due to various reasons,

including absence of the counsel representing the respondents.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::

CriWP358-2002.odt -11-

9. On 28.06.2021, when this matter was called out, learned

counsel Mr. P. B. Patil representing respondent no.8 submitted that

after the matter was posted for hearing, learned counsel had tried

his best to contact respondent no.8. According to him, it is learnt

from the friends of respondent no.8 that respondent no.8 is no

more. Learned counsel submitted that respondent no.8 was serving

in Andhra Pradesh Police and he was residing within the

jurisdiction of Karimnagar Police Station at the time of filing of this

Writ Petition. Learned counsel thus sought time to take specific

instructions in this regard. We also requested learned APP to take

instructions from the concerned police station, particularly from

respondent no.3 as to the present status of respondent no.8.

10. In compliance with the order dated 28.06.2021, learned APP

informed this Court that a letter has been issued to the

Superintendent of Police, Nanded to take instructions as to the

whereabouts of respondent no.8 P. Sanjeev Kumar, who was the

circle inspector at the relevant time and who is in the service of

Andhra Pradesh Police Department. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for

respondent no.8 also sought time.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::

CriWP358-2002.odt -12-

11. On 19.07.2021, in compliance of the order dated 12.07.2021,

learned App placed before this Court a communication in writing

received from the Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar, Telengana

State. The Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar, has informed the

Superintendent of Police, Nanded vide communication dated

14.07.2021 that respondent no. 8 herein, namely P. Sanjeev Kumar,

Who was working as a Police Inspector at Karimnagar I-Town Police

Station, has expired on 04.03.2019 while on duty due to cardiac

arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus sought leave to

delete the name of respondent no.8. In view of the communication

in writing sent by Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar, Telangana

State, name of respondent no.8 came to be deleted from the array

of respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further sought

leave to amend prayer clause 'D' of this petition to the extent that

respondent nos. 1 to 3, 4 to 7 and 9 may be directed to pay the

compensation to the petitioner for illegal and unlawful detention of

the petitioner. Leave was accordingly granted.

12. We have carefully gone through the contents of FIR No.

496/1997 (Exh. A), and its translation from Telugu to English,

registered at Karimnagar I-Town Police Station for the offence

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -13- punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. The said FIR was registered on 20.12.1997. It

further appears that Saritha w/o Shyam Kurolla is the complainant

and on the basis of her complaint the crime came to be registered

against her husband Shyam, father-in-law Pochanna, mother-in-law

Venkamma and brother-in-law Ravi. In clause 15 of the format of

the FIR, the crux of the allegations are mentioned. On careful

perusal of the same, it appears that Saritha w/o Shyam Kurolla has

alleged that at the time of her marriage, her mother and father

gave dowry of Rs.70,000/- and other incidental articles to her

husband and the couple lead a peaceful married life for six months.

It has been alleged that thereafter, her husband Shyam, father-in-

law Pochanna, mother-in-law Venkamma and brother-in-law Ravi

jointly demanded additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and mentally

harassed and ill-treated her. At that time, she was having four

months pregnancy. It was told to her that if she is not able to bring

the dowry, her husband would leave her and perform second

marriage with another girl who can bring more dowry. They

forcibly thrown away her from home. Thus, she came to her

mother's house and at that time she was having a female baby aged

eight months. It is thus clear that neither the petitioner arraigned

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -14- as an accused person in connection with the crime, nor the

allegations have been made by referring name of the petitioner.

The allegations have been made against the husband, father-in-law

mother-in-law and another brother of the husband, namely, Ravi,

but certainly not the petitioner.

13. We have minutely gone through the entries taken in the

station diary of Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded, the extract of

which is placed on record and marked at Exhibit R-1 along with the

affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.4, the then P.S.O. on duty

at Bhagyanagar Police Station. The first entry at serial number 9

pertains to the date 23.01.1998 at about 0600 hrs. and it is

recorded in vernacular as :

;k osGh ONE Town P. stn. djhe uxj vka-iz- ;sFkwu rsFkhy CR. No. 496/97 dye 498 (A) IPC o 4 D.P Act e/khy vkjksihps 'kks/kkFkZ rsFkhy PC's 1768, 2485 vls gtj vkys-

sd/-

(HC 1049 canwds)

On the given time, the Police Constables Buckle Nos. 1768, 2485 of the One Town Police Station, Karim Nagar, Andhara Pradesh arrived in search of accused in Crime No.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -15-

496/1997 U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and 4 of D.P. Act.

Signed HC 1049 Banduke

(translated by official translator of this Bench)

On the same day, at serial number 11, at 0705 hrs, it is

recorded as "jokuk" and the information is recorded in vernacular in

the following manner :

;k osGh ojhy uksan ua 9 e/khy PC's 1768, 2485 gs lnj xqUg;krhy vkjksih lqjs'k iksPkUUkk dqjksYyq jk- f'kouxj] ukansM ;kl ?ksowu djhe uxjyk jokuk >kys-

sd/-

(HC 1049 canwds)

On the given time, the PCs Buckle Nos. 1768, 2485 as mentioned in entry No. 9 proceeded towards Karim Nagar by taking Suresh Pochanna Kurollu, R/o. Shiv Nagar, Nanded, the accused in said crime.

Signed HC 1049 Banduke

(translated by official translator of this Bench)

There is one third entry in the station diary (Exh. R-1),

however, we will refer that entry in the later part of the judgment.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -16-

14. On the same day, i.e. on 23.01.1998, the brother of the

petitioner, namely, K. Raju s/o Pochanna had filed a complaint in

writing (Exhibit "C") before the Superintendent of Police, Nanded,

about illegal arrest of the petitioner by Karimnagar I-Town Police

Station, District Karimnagar. He specifically stated in the said

complaint that on 23.01.1998 at about 04.00 a.m., the police from

Karimnagar I-Town Police Station had been to their house, arrested

the petitioner and took him along with them, when in fact the

petitioner was having no concern with the said offence and his

name did not find place in the FIR bearing FIR No. 496/1997 dated

20.12.1997. Likewise, no name of the petitioner found in the

complaint lodged by Saritha. There is also reference in the said

complaint Exhibit "C" filed before the Superintendent of Police,

Nanded that the brother of the petitioner, namely, K. Raju, has filed

a complaint in writing with the Bhagyanagar Police Station,

Nanded about illegal arrest of his brother. On perusal of the extract

of the station diary Exhibit R-1, it appears that an entry about filing

of the complaint by Raju Pochanna was also taken. The said entry

at serial number 15 seem to have been recorded at about 10.00

hrs., which is in the following manner:

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::

CriWP358-2002.odt -17-

;k osGh jktw ikspUuk firk iksPkUUkk] o; 27 o"kZ /kank [kktxh ukSdjh jk- rkUkkth uxj] ukansM ;kauh iks-LVs- yk le{k gtj gksowu ys[kh rdzkj fnyh dh fnukad 23-01-1998 ps 04-00 ok- R;kaps ?kjh djhe uxj ONE Town police station ps iksyhl vkys o R;kps Hkkokl ukes lqjs'k ikspUuk dqjksYyq ;kl R;kps CR. No. 496 e/;s uko ulrkauk nsf[ky R;kl ?ksowu xsys R;kauh LFkkuhd iksyhlkaph enr ?ksryh ukgh- djhrk uksan sd/-

(PSI Jh- ikfVy-)

On the given time, one Raju Pochnna S/o Pochnna, aged 27 years, Occu. Private job, R/o. Tanaji Nagar, lodged written complaint in person that, the staff of the One Town Police Station of Karim Nagar came to his house at 0400 Hrs. of 23.01.1998 and took his brother with them namely Suresh Pochanna Kurollu in Crime No. 496 despite his brother was not named in the crime. They did not take assistance of local police. Hence this entry.

Signed PSI, Patil

(translated by official translator of this Bench)

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -18-

15. Though respondent no. 8 is no more, however, during his

lifetime, he filed an affidavit-in-reply wherein he admitted about

registration of crime at Karimnagar I-Town Police Station on the

basis of the complaint lodged by one Saritha for the offence

punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC. He registered the said

complaint and transferred the same to woman police station,

Karimnagar for further investigation. According to him, he has not

investigated in the crime, nor recorded the statement of the

witnesses and also not effected arrest of any of the accused persons

in the above crime.

16. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.6 kept the

him illegally in his custody for eight days without producing him

before the Judicial Magistrate of Karimnagar and also without

giving any information to the relatives of the petitioner about his

arrest. The petitioner suffered mentally and physically due to the

said harassment.

17. We have carefully gone through the correspondence made by

the petitioner and his family members. It appears that the

petitioner and his family members sent communication in writing

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -19- to the Collector of Nanded, the Chief Minister, the MLA and also to

respondent nos. 2 and 3 referring about the illegal arrest and

detention of the petitioner in connection with the said crime by

Karimnagar Police Station. The petitioner specifically alleged that

when he was taken to the Karimnagar I-Town Police Station, he

was confined from 23.01.1998 to 30.01.1998 without any

reasonable cause. On 23.01.1998, the petitioner's brother, namely,

K. Raju moved an application to the Superintendent of Police,

Nanded narrating therein the above incident, but the

Superintendent of Police, Nanded had also not taken any

cognizance.

18. In D. K. Basu (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioner, the Supreme Court in para 36 of the Judgment, has

considered it appropriate to issue the requirements to be followed

in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in

that behalf as preventive measures. Para 36 is reproduced herein

below:

" 36. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -20- that behalf as preventive measures :

(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.

(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.

(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.

(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -21- an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or and through the legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.

(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon he is put under arrest or is detained.

(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.

(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.

(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -22- panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned Stare or Union Territory. Director, Health Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and Districts as well.

(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the (sic) Magistrate for his record.

(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.

(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board."

19. In The State of Maharashtra v. Shri. Sagar Balu Ubhe (supra)

relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division

Bench of this Court by referring the principles evolved in D.K.

Basu's case and also by referring other cases wherein the principles

laid down in D. K. Basu's case are followed, in para 28 has made

the following observations:

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::

CriWP358-2002.odt -23- "28. The principles evolved in D.K. Basu have been followed ever since: Mehboob Batch v State, (2011) 7 SCC 45, Haricharan v State of MP, (2011) 4 SCC 159 and Sube Singh v State of Haryana (2006) 3 SCC 178 among them. But D.K. Basu also enunciated the principle of monetary or pecuniary compensation as an appropriate and "indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the right to life of a citizen by public servants." The State is vicariously liable for their acts. The objective is to provide a balm for State-inflicted wounds, not to punish the transgressor or offender. In this case, once the infringement of right to liberty has been established, it remains to determine the quantum of appropriate compensation. In S.P.S. Rathore v State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 1 while following D.K.Basu, the Supreme Court held that compensation can be awarded, but this is not jurisdiction that a court should lightly exercise under either Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The courts have consistently permitted monetary compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right, the Supreme Court held in S.P.S. Rathore, noting a very large number of cases where this principle has been followed. [Para 10 of the SCC report]. No particular amount has been sought as compensation in the prayers in this writ petition, and, in our view, rightly, for this is a matter ever in the discretion of the

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -24- court. That some compensation must be ordered to be paid is, in our view, an inescapable conclusion. What are the considerations we should bear in mind while assessing the quantum? The petitioner's antecedents are, we believe, entirely irrelevant and cannot be a mitigating circumstance in favour of the respondent;

every person is entitled to the protection of the law, even every recidivist. Should compensation be adjusted according to the social station of the victim? We think not. The only gauge, as we see it, is an assessment of the conduct of the public servants. Where we find their conduct wanting, compensation must follow without regard to the status of the victim. Having regard to the facts of the case, the nature of the testimony and the conduct of the parties, it is our view that an amount of Rs.5 lakhs is just compensation payable to the petitioner by the 1st respondent. In our view, this cannot be said to be an exorbitant sum, bearing in mind that the State Government has resisted and opposed the enquiry and has not once, but twice applied before us to have the enquiry report quashed. A very considerable amount of judicial time has been thus expended on this matter in one forum or the other. Even otherwise, by present- day standards, we do not think that the compensation we have in mind can at all be considered to be unreasonably high. Needless to add, this amount of compensation is entirely without prejudice to the civil remedies, if any, available to the petitioner."

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::

CriWP358-2002.odt -25-

20. In the case of Laxman Dattatraya Dahiphale (supra) relied

upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, in identical facts, the

Division Bench of this Court has considered the illegal arrest and

detention of the petitioner therein and further held that the State is

liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-

21. In Vachhalabai w/o Bharat Shinde v. The State of

Maharashtra and Ors. (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for

the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to

consider the illegal arrest and detention. By referring Articles 21

and 22 of the Constitution of India about fundamental rights and

safeguards for protection of those rights and also referring various

provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Division Bench of

this Court held that 'when there is a breach of fundamental right,

liability to pay compensation is absolute and so the respondents

cannot escape from such liability under any ground'.

22. It is necessary to mention here that Chapter V of Cr.P.C.

which pertains to 'arrest of persons' has been substantially

amended by insertion of Section 50-A vide Act 25 of 2005 (w.e.f.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::

CriWP358-2002.odt -26- 23.06.2006) and by insertion of Sections 41-A to 41-D vide Act 5 of

2009 (w.e.f. 01.11.2010). Section 56 of Cr.P.C. mandates that a

police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without

unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein contained as

to bail, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having

jurisdiction in the case, or before the officer in charge of a police

station.

23. Thus, there is evidence in the form of entries recorded in the

station diary of Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded and the copy

of the FIR placed on record that despite knowing that the petitioner

was not an accused in connection with crime no. 496/1997, the

police constables of Karimnagar I-Town Police Station, Andhra

Pradesh had effected arrest of the petitioner. It is also a fact that

the petitioner, after his so-called arrest, was not produced before

the concerned Magistrate at Nanded for his transit remand. The

petitioner was not the person implicated in connection with the

said crime as an accused and if he would have been produced

before the Magistrate at Nanded for transit remand, the Magistrate

at Nanded would not have remanded him. It thus appears that

knowing it well, the police constables of Karimnagar I -Town Police

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -27- Station had not produced the petitioner for his transit remand

before the Magistrate at Nanded. We are of the considered opinion

that the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the said crime

was illegal. It was done with some malicious intention. The

petitioner was deprived of his personal liberty owing to his illegal

arrest and further wrongful detention in connection with the crime

for which he was not arraigned as an accused person.

24. Respondent nos. 2, 6, 7 and 9 have not contested this

petition by filing any reply.

25. So far as the role of Maharashtra Police is concerned, after

referring the initial correspondence it appears that immediately

after the illegal arrest of the petitioner by Karimnagar Police

Station in connection with crime no. 496/97, the allegations have

been made against the police personnel of Karimnagar Police

Station. In the complaint dated 23.01.1998 filed before the

Superintendent of Police Nanded, so also in the concerned Police

Station by the brother of the petitioner, namely, K. Raju, the

allegations have been made only against Karimnagar Police

constables. It has been specifically alleged that on 23.01.1998 in

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -28- the early morning, the police from Karimnagar I-Town Police

Station had been to the house of the petitioner, arrested him and

took him with them to Karimnagar I-Town Police Station. However,

in the complaint dated 10.08.1998 filed by the father of the

petitioner in the Police Station at Bhagyanagar, Nanded, for the

first time the allegations have been made against the P.S.O. and the

other Constable of Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded. There is a

reference that the petitioner was subjected to beating by the said

two constables of Bhagyanagar Police Station. However, after much

gap, i.e. almost in the year 2001, the petitioner and his family

members have made the allegations that the said police constables

of Karimnagar I - Town Police Station with the help of the police of

Bhagyanagar Police Station, namely, Hanmantrao Banduke, Head

Constable (B. No.1049) and Laxman Doiwad, Constable

(B.No.1673) arrested the petitioner at his house and at that time,

Police Constable Laxman Doiwad (B.No.1673) of Bhagyanagar

Police Station extended beating to the petitioner and forcibly took

him in a private jeep. In the earlier correspondence and even the

earlier complaints filed before the Superintendent of Police and the

concerned Police Station, there are no allegations against these

Police Constables of Bhagyanagar Police Station.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::

CriWP358-2002.odt -29-

26. Learned APP has placed reliance in the case of Sandeep

Kumar v. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) (supra), wherein, the

Delhi High Court has dealt with the questions regarding the

procedure to be followed by the police of one State, when they go

to some other State or Union Territory, to effect an arrest while

investigating a complaint or a First Information Report disclosing a

cognizable offence. In the habeas corpus petition, the Delhi High

Court decided to constitute a Committee to conduct an enquiry into

the matter and in particular the legality of the actions of the police

attached to certain police stations. In para 15, the Delhi High Court

has referred the suggestions given by the said Committee. Para 15

to the extent of the clauses which are relevant for the present

discussion are reproduced herein below:

"15. The Committee has, after examining all of the above material in detail, given detailed suggestions as to the protocol to be followed by the police in the event of inter-state arrest. These read as under :

1. ....

2. In a case when the police officer decides to effect an arrest, he must set out the facts and record reasons in writing disclosing the satisfaction that

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -30- arrest is necessary for the purpose of investigation. At first instance, he should move the Jurisdictional Magistrate to seek arrest/search warrants under Section 78 and 79 Cr.P.C. except in emergent cases when the time taken is likely to result in escape of the accused or disappearance of incriminating evidence or the procurement of arrest/search warrant would defeat the purpose. The Police Officer must record reasons as to what were the compelling reasons to visit other State without getting arrest/search warrants.

3. ....

4. ....

5. Before visiting the other State, the Police Officer must endeavour to establish contact with the local Police Station in whose jurisdiction he is to conduct the investigation. He must carry with him the translated copies of the Complaint/FIR and other documents in the language of the State which he intends to visit.

6. After reaching the destination, first of all, he should inform the concerned police station of the purpose of his visit to seek assistance and co-

operation. The concerned SHO should provide/render all legal assistance to him. Entry to this effect must be made at the said police station.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::

CriWP358-2002.odt -31-

7. After reaching the spot of investigation, search, if any should be strictly conducted in compliance of the procedure laid down u/s 100 Cr.P.C. All endeavour should be made to join independent public witnesses from the neighbourhood. In case of arrest, the police officer must follow the procedure u/s. 41 A and 41 and Section 50 and 51 Cr.P.C. The process of arrest carried out by the police must be in compliance with the guidelines given in DK Basu case (Supra) and the provisions of Cr.P.C.

8. The arrested person must be given an opportunity to consult his lawyer before he is taken out of State.

9. While returning, the police officer must visit the local police station and cause an entry made in the Daily Diary specifying the name and address of the person(s) being taken out of the State; articles if any, recovered. The victim's name be also indicated.

10. Endeavor should be made to obtain transit remand after producing the arrestee before the nearest Magistrate unless exigencies of the situation warrant otherwise and the person can be produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction of the case without infringing the mandate of S. 56 and 57 of Cr.P.C. within 24 hours.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::

CriWP358-2002.odt -32-

11 to 14 ......

15. Since the arrestee is to be taken out of his State to a place away where he may not have any acquaintance, he may be permitted to take along with him (if possible), his family member/acquaintance to remain with him till he is produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Such family member would be able to arrange legal assistance for him."

27. The Delhi High Court disposed off the petition by issuing

directions as per para 24 of the judgment. Para 24 is reproduced

herein below:

"24. The petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) A copy of the report of the Committee be immediately forwarded both to the CP, Delhi and the DGP, Uttar Pradesh for appropriate disciplinary action to be initiated on the basis of the said report against the police officials under their respective control and supervision as directed in para 10 of this judgment.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -33-

(ii) The disciplinary inquiry in each case will be held by a senior level official, strictly in accordance with the procedures prescribed, and will be completed not later than six months from the date of receipt respectively by the CP, Delhi and the DGP, Uttar Pradesh respectively of the copy of the report of the Committee together with the certified copy of this order.

(iii) The suggestions of the Committee as set out in paras 15 and 16 of this judgment are directed to be adopted for implementation both by the Delhi Police and the police in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Orders to this effect shall be issued by the DGP, Uttar Pradesh and the CP Delhi within two weeks.

(iv) A certified copy of this judgment together with a complete copy of the report of the Committee (together with its annexures) will be delivered forthwith to the CP, Delhi by a Special Messenger.

Likewise copy of this judgment together with a complete copy of the report of the Committee (together with its annexures) will be delivered forthwith to the DGP, Uttar Pradesh by an approved courier and the tracking report of proof of delivery shall be kept in the file.

(v) Compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to both Sandeep and Nisha shall be paid by the State of Uttar

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -34- Pradesh for their illegal detention by the UP police which stands established prima facie by the report of the Committee. The amounts should be paid within a period of four weeks along with a letter written to each of them personally by the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh himself, apologizing to each of them for the conduct of his police officials.

(vi) The CP, Delhi and the DGP, Uttar Pradesh will file compliance reports in this Court within six months and in any event not later than 30 th June 2020. The Registry will place the petition for this purpose before the Court immediately after the Court reopens i.e. 6 th July 2020."

28. In the instant case, after careful perusal of the entries taken

in the station diary of Bhagyanagar Police Station, we are satisfied

that the local police station has complied with its part of duty. In

the result, we do not think that the Maharashtra Police are

responsible for the illegal arrest and further unlawful detention of

the petitioner.

29. The petitioner was a student of the law college at the

relevant time. He suffered mentally and physically for his illegal

arrest and unlawful detention for eight days in connection with the

crime in which he was not arraigned as an accused person.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::

CriWP358-2002.odt -35-

30. It is well settled that the award of compensation against the

State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an

established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21,

by a public servant. In S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews and

Others, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 804, by referring the ratio laid

down by the three-Judge Bench in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana

(2006) 3 SCC 178 and also the ratio laid down in the case of

Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P. (2012) 1 SCC 748, the Supreme

Court in para 41 to 43 has made the following observations:

"41. In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, the three- Judge Bench, after referring to the earlier decisions, has opined: (SCC pp.198-99, para 38)

"38. It is thus now well settled that the award of compensation against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article 21, by a public servant. The quantum of compensation will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of such compensation (by way of

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -36- public law remedy) will not come in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional compensation in a civil court, in the enforcement of the private law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal court ordering compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

42. In Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P. , the Court was dealing with the issue of delayed trial and the humiliation faced by the appellant therein. A Division Bench of the High Court in intra-court appeal had granted compensation of Rs.70,000/-. This Court, while dealing with the quantum of compensation, highlighted the suffering and humiliation caused to the appellant and enhanced the compensation.

43. In the instant case, keeping in view the report of CBI and the judgment rendered by this Court in K. Chandrasekhar, suitable compensation has to be awarded, without any trace of doubt, to compensate the suffering, anxiety and the treatment by which the quintessence of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution withers away. We think it appropriate to direct the State of Kerala to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs towards compensation to the appellant and, accordingly, it is so ordered. The said

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -37- amount shall be paid within eight weeks by the State. We hasten to clarify that the appellant, if so advised, may proceed with the civil suit wherein he has claimed more compensation. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the suit."

31. in view of the above discussion and in terms of the ratio laid

down by the Supreme Court and also by the Division Bench of this

Court, in our considered opinion, the petitioner is entitled for

compensation. The petition is pending since 2002. The petitioner is

at present a practicing lawyer in Nanded District. The petitioner

was a law student at the time of his illegal arrest and detention.

Thus, considering the entire aspect of the case and the agony

suffered by the petitioner and his family members, we quantify the

compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) as against

respondent nos. 3, 6, 7 and 9. Hence, we proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

I. The petition is hereby partly allowed.

II. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) for his illegal arrest and detention by Karimnagar I-Town Police Station at Karimnagar (State of Andhra Pradesh) as against respondent nos. 3, 6, 7 and 9.

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 ::: CriWP358-2002.odt -38-

III. The amount of compensation shall be paid by respondent no.9 within three months from the date of receipt of this order and to be recovered, if necessary, from respondent nos. 3, 6 and 7.

IV. The petition stands dismissed as against respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5

V. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.

(S. G. DIGE, J.) (V. K. JADHAV, J.)

vre

::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::