2013 (8) TMI 1169 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of fundamental rights u/Article 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India.
2. Non-adherence to statutory guidelines before arrest.
3. Mental and physical harassment leading to compensation claim.
4. Legality of the arrest and procedural compliance.

Summary:

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The petitioner filed a writ petition u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging violation of fundamental rights u/Article 14, 21, and 22 due to non-adherence to statutory guidelines before arrest, causing immense mental and physical harassment, and seeking compensation of Rs. 20 lacs.

2. Non-Adherence to Statutory Guidelines:
The petitioner argued that despite a direction for seven days' pre-arrest notice, respondents visited his parents' house on 17th June 2010 without any arrest or search warrant, allegedly to harass and extort money. The respondents claimed they visited Pune to serve the pre-arrest notice, which could have been sent by registered post. The daily diary entry did not mention serving the pre-arrest notice but stated the purpose as investigation.

3. Mental and Physical Harassment Leading to Compensation Claim:
The petitioner claimed that the illegal raid on 17th June 2010 forced his father, a heart patient, to travel from Bangalore to Pune, resulting in mental trauma and a subsequent heart attack leading to his death on 1st July 2010. A private complaint was filed before the JMFC, Pune, leading to an investigation u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and issuance of processes against the respondents. The Bombay High Court quashed the issuance of process, and an SLP is pending before the Supreme Court.

4. Legality of the Arrest and Procedural Compliance:
The petitioner alleged illegal arrest on 4th June 2011, in violation of the Court order for seven days' pre-arrest notice. The respondents claimed the arrest was lawful, with approval from ACP and compliance with procedural requirements. The petitioner disputed the arrest memo and claimed non-disclosure of arrest grounds and detention place. The court found these to be disputed facts requiring evidence, not suitable for determination in a writ petition.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner raised disputed questions of facts not amenable to writ jurisdiction u/Article 226. The petitioner was advised to seek appropriate remedy under the law.