9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1378 - SC - Indian LawsOffence 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.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Arrest and Detention 2. Violation of Procedural Safeguards 3. Entitlement to Compensation 4. Justifiability of Continuance of Criminal Proceedings Analysis of the Judgment: 1. Legality of Arrest and Detention: The court scrutinized the arrest and detention of the Petitioners, highlighting that the arrest was made without following the proper legal procedure. The Petitioners were arrested from their residence in Pune and transported to Bhopal without being produced before a local Magistrate. The arresting officers did not comply with Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates issuing a notice to appear before arrest in cases where the maximum sentence is less than seven years. The court emphasized that the arrest was made without reasonable satisfaction and that the procedure of arrest was not followed, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. 2. Violation of Procedural Safeguards: The court referred to an enquiry report which revealed multiple violations of procedural safeguards. The arrest memo was not properly prepared, and the information about the arrest was not communicated to the relatives or friends of the arrestees. The Petitioners were not produced before a local Magistrate and were transported in an unreserved railway compartment marked 'viklang' (handicapped). The court noted that the dignity and liberty of the Petitioners were seriously jeopardized, and the investigating agency had failed to follow the statutory safeguards, leading to a violation of the Petitioners' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. 3. Entitlement to Compensation: The court held that the officers of the State had played with the liberty of the Petitioners, causing trauma and pain. The court referred to the concept of public law remedy for the violation of fundamental rights, as established in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and Sube Singh v. State of Haryana. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the court granted a sum of ?5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) as compensation to each of the Petitioners, to be paid by the State of Madhya Pradesh within three months. The court also allowed the State to proceed against the erring officials if so advised. 4. Justifiability of Continuance of Criminal Proceedings: The court examined the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners. The learned Magistrate had found a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66A(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. However, Section 66A of the IT Act had been struck down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. The court observed that the dispute was purely of a civil nature and did not attract the ingredients of Section 420 IPC. The court held that the entire case projected a civil dispute and nothing else, invoking the principle laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Consequently, the court quashed the proceedings initiated at the instance of the 8th Respondent and set aside the order negativing the prayer for discharge of the accused persons. Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated above, and the prosecution initiated against the Petitioners was quashed. The court awarded compensation for the violation of the Petitioners' rights and emphasized the importance of following procedural safeguards in arrest and detention.
|
