Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (6) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1378 - SUPREME COURTOffence punishable Under Section 66D of the Act - Compensation on the bedrock of public law remedy - justifiability of the continuance of the criminal proceedings - HELD THAT:- The officers of the State had played with the liberty of the Petitioners and, in a way, experimented with it. Law does not countenance such kind of experiments as that causes trauma and pain. In the case at hand, there has been violation of Article 21 and the Petitioners were compelled to face humiliation. They have been treated with an attitude of insensibility. Not only there are violation of guidelines issued in the case of SHRI DK. BASU, ASHOK K. JOHRI VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL, STATE OF UP. [1996 (12) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT]), there are also flagrant violation of mandate of law enshrined Under Section 41 and Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigating officers in no circumstances can flout the law with brazen proclivity. In such a situation, the public law remedy which has been postulated in NILABATI BEHERA @ LALITA BEHERA VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA [1993 (3) TMI 355 - SUPREME COURT], SUBE SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [2006 (2) TMI 699 - SUPREME COURT], comes into play. The constitutional courts taking note of suffering and humiliation are entitled to grant compensation. That has been regarded as a redeeming feature. In the case at hand, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, we think it appropriate to grant a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation to each of the Petitioners to be paid by the State of M.P. within three months hence. It will be open to the State to proceed against the erring officials, if so advised. In the present case, it can be stated with certitude that no ingredient of Section 420 Indian Penal Code is remotely attracted. Even if it is a wrong, the complainant has to take recourse to civil action. The case in hand does not fall in the categories where cognizance of the offence can be taken by the court and the accused can be asked to face trial. In our considered opinion, the entire case projects a civil dispute and nothing else. The proceedings initiated at the instance of the 8th Respondent is quashed - the order negativing the prayer for discharge of the accused persons is set aside - prosecution initiated against the Petitioners stands quashed - petition allowed.
|