Kerala High Court: In a writ petition filed seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner for her illegal arrest and detention by the police, Gopinath P, J., while dismissing the writ petition, said that petitioner 1 had not made out any case for award of compensation in exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction under Article of the , and the relief sought against the police for harassment was unsustainable. However, the Court directed the State Police Chief to ensure that arrest or detention, based on the wrong identity, did not result in the invasion of life and liberty of innocent citizens.
Background
The petitioner 1 and her husband, were both accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section of the (‘IPC’). It has been alleged that that the husband of the petitioner had taken money from the de facto complainant and several others, in exchange of promise to secure jobs for them in Israel, and after taking the de facto complainant and others to Jordan on the promise that they would be taken to Israel from Jordan, they were brought back to India without offering any job as promised. It has been further alleged that the husband of petitioner 1 took the de facto complainant and others to Egypt, again promising that they would gain entry to Israel, and according to the de facto complainant, they were again brought back to India without obtaining for them any job as promised in Israel.
The petitioner submitted that the allegations in the First Information Report (‘FIR’) would show that there were no allegations against her in it, but she was arrayed as an accused in the case only to pressurize her husband, the other accused.
It was contended that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide an order dated 29-08-2018, however, on 16-11-2018, police personal reached the petitioner’s residence and were alleged to have broken the door and entered her home where they forcefully caught her, outraged her modesty and pushed her into the police jeep in front of her children, suing obscene language throughout.
It has been alleged by the petitioner that the police personnel said that no mater what the High Court or Magistrate had to say, they would deal with fraudsters and punish them in a manner only they thought fit. It was further submitted by the petitioner that upon inquiry by the neighbours as to why the petitioner was being arrested, the police said that the petitioner would be released from custody if an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was given to some person named X. It was also alleged that abuses were hurled at the petitioner at the station, and she was also threatened to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the said person. Relying on a newspaper report dated 17-1-2018, it was alleged by the petitioner that her arrest was later portrayed as a case of mistaken identity and that she was free to go later in the evening. Petitioner alleged that it was amply clear she was picked up from her home with the sole intention of harassing her, who was only released due to the hue and cry by the locals regarding her illegal detention. The State on the other hand argued that there was no illegal detention as alleged by petitioner 1, and that she was not arrested on 16-11-2018. It was further contended that a Non-Bailable Warrant (‘NBW’) was issued by the First-Class Magistrate, and the address therein was almost identical as that of the petitioner’s. Later, upon verification it was found that petitioner 1 was not the person against whom the NBW was issued and that and she was immediately allowed to leave.
It was further alleged by the State that the allegations of harassment and use of abusive language towards were unfounded and false. It was alleged that petitioner 1 had come to the police station voluntarily with the police personnel, that she was not entitled to any compensation as the police were acting in discharge of their official duties.
Decision and Analysis
Upon hearing both parties, the Court opined that petitioner 1 had not made out any case for the grant of reliefs as sought under the writ petition and said that for a Court to grant compensation in such cases it must be demonstrably evident from the facts that the action of the police authorities were nothing but an abuse of the law and in violation of the fundamental rights of the citizen.
The Court noted that the action of the police, was in execution of a warrant issued by the First Class Magistrate and that upon examination of the address of the petitioner 1 and the address of the accused mentioned in the NBW were very similar, and that it was genuine mistake on the part of the police.
The Court held that the petitioner 1 had not made out any case for award of compensation in exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction under Article of the , and the relief sought against the police for harassment was unsustainable, as the said police officials had already moved out of the particular police station. The Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition.
However, the Court despite dismissing the writ petition, has said that this was an admitted detention of petitioner 1 in connection with the execution of NBW issued against a different person, and urged the police to ensure that identity of a person should be established clearly before any arrest or detention is made. The Court further directed the State Polie chief to formulate suitable instructions to ensure that arrest or detention, based on the wrong identity, did not result in the invasion of life and liberty of innocent citizens.
[Shalet v. State of Kerala, WP(C) NO. 37943 OF 2018, decided on 21-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for the Petitioner: V. Jayapradeep, Ann Susan George, O.A. Nuriya, D.S. Lokanathan, Alan Priyadarshi Dev, Anisha Emerson, Advocates
Advocates for the State: Thushara James, Sr. GP., Mansoor B.H., Advocates
Buy Constitution of India
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .