Legal Terrorism: A tool to Kill Indian Men

State sponsored 'Legal Terrorism' in action to Kill Indian Men

In India lodging a false case u/s 498-A, DV Act 2005 and 376 IPC is just like ordering a pizza. Large number of females using these legal provision as a tool to settle score with male parteners and their family members after failed marriages. The law is very stringent but is vagure, unfair and easy to misuse, In year 2006 The Supreme Court of India termed these statutory provision as "Legal Terrorism" and asked the Govt of India to amend these provisions. But the Govt of India is still sleeping and did nothing to stop these abuse.

The recent report of India's National Crime Records Bureau(NCRB) reveals 242 male and 129 female suicides a day (Report) . Though the count of male suide is almost double than female, still there is no legal remdy to deal with criminals who force men to commit suicide.

Many young married men are commiting suicide becuase of False 498-A and Domestic Violence cases filed on them by their estranged wives. There is no legal provision to deal with criminals who force men to commit suicide. When a suicide case of young man is reported to police, The police just shifts the body for post-mortem and registered a case under section 174 (Suspicious death) and They do not take any further action to bring the perpetrator of the crime to justice. Hence cases involving men suicide never reach to  courtrooms. Even if somehow a case reaches in court, The courts are very reluctant to deal with men's suicide cases.

On the otherhand if a married woman commit suicide, police directly register the case u/s 498-B and 306 IPC and entire family of husband and his relatives is put behind bars ,When the case related to  suicide of a married woman comes in courts, Indian evidence act section 112-B is applied and husband and his family is presumed as guilty and they have to disprove the entire case. In nutshell, There is no justice for men and they do not have a difnified life and the entire system is treating then unfairly.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-saw-135445-suicides-last-year/article4849710.ece

Purshottam Ramnani Vs NCT of Delhi and Ors [HC Delhi]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Date of Reserve: 4.12.2007

Date of Order: 28.2.2008

W.P.(Crl.) No. 1392/2007

Mr. Purshottam Ramnani ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.N.Srivastava, Advocate

Versus

Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. ... Respondents

Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocate

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

This Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner with following prayers: (a)
issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents no. 2 and 3 not to
obstruct/restrain the petitioner from visiting flat no. 53, Swastik Kunj, Plot No. 29,
Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi; (b) issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the
respondents no. 2 and 3 to register the complaint dated 7.9.2007 of the petitioner
addressed to DCP (North West); (c) issue appropriate writ, order or direction by
quashing the proceedings under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure initiated against the petitioner at the instance of respondents no. 4 and 5;
(d) issue appropriate writ, order or direction against respondents 1 to 3 to award
damages to the petitioner for having been illegally sent to jail at the instance of
respondents no. 4 and 5; (e) Award costs in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents; and (f) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Petitioner has contended that he knew one Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal and his
wife Urvashi Bansal (Respondent No.4). Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal requested him for
financial help and the Petitioner extended all financial help to him from time to
time. Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal used to repay the loan to the Petitioner. Mr. Raj
Kumar Bansal and Urvashi Bansal had no child and they adopted a baby girl
Neelambri Bansal. They invested money to purchase three flats numbers 1, 53 and
198 in Swastik Kunj, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi between 10.3.1995 to 29.12.1995.
The Petitioner had started the business of construction and developing of buildings
by that time and he renovated and decorated Flat No. 1, Swastik Kunj at the
request of Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal. Quarrels started between Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal
and his wife Urvashi Bansal. The Petitioner in order to help them, renovated the
second flat no. 198, Swastik Kunj so as to rent it out and have some running
income. The flat was let out to one Shri Ramesh Kumar at the monthly rent of
Rs.7,000/- per month.
3. In March 2000, due to the strained relations, Urvashi Bansal was turned out by
her husband Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal from flat no. 1, Swastik Kunj and she started
living with her mother. After being turned out she approached the Petitioner and
requested for financial assistance. Petitioner claims that he advanced a loan of Rs.5
lac to her for renovation of 3rd flat i.e. flat no. 53, Swastik Kunj. She spent about
Rs.2.5 lac on the renovation of that flat and started living there. Thereafter, she
started seeking financial help from the Petitioner from time to time. Petitioner used
to treat her as his sister. He advanced a fresh loan of Rs.10 lac to her and assisted
her in the legal battle against her husband and also assisted her in continuation of
studies of her adopted daughter. Since she could not repay the loan availed from
the Petitioner, she executed a Power of Attorney in Petitioner's favour in respect of
flats no. 1 and 198, Swastik Kunj, Sector-13, Rohini and confirmed that so long as
the loan taken by her was not returned, the Petitioner could retain the Power of
Attorney of the two flats. She handed over the vacant physical possession of flat
no. 198, Swastik Kunj to the Petitioner. She then asked the Petitioner to shift to flat
no. 53, Swastik Kunj and both started living in same flat. The Petitioner claims that
he disposed of his father's flat no. B-144, Karam Pura, Delhi and started living
with Respondent No.4 at 53, Swastik Kunj since May, 2003. He also advanced
another loan of Rs.8 lac to her and in lieu of that Respondent No.4 handed over all
the original documents pertaining to flat no. 53, Swastik Kunj to him and also
executed an undertaking in his favour affirming that she will repay the loan
amount along with interest within a span of five years and in case she failed to
repay the amount, the Petitioner would become the owner of the said flat.
Petitioner further claims that in October, 2005 he again advanced another loan of
Rs.10 lac to her. In lieu of the said loan she gave him two post dated cheques of
Rs.5 lac each. These two cheques later got dis-honoured on presentation. On
24.11.2006, Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal, husband of Urvashi Bansal died and on this
she and her daughter shifted to flat no. 1, Swastik Kunj, where Mr. Raj Kumar
Bansal used to live, and started living there. Petitioner continued living at flat no.
53 exclusively.
4. On 25.8.2007, Petitioner found a change in the attitude of Urvashi
Bansal/Respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 along with her sister Upma Bhagoria
(Respondent No.5) visited flat no. 198, Swastik Kunj and broke open the locks of
the said flat. On this, Petitioner made a call at 100 and brought all these facts to the
notice of the police. A PCR Van visited the flat and took the Petitioner,
Respondent No.4 and her sister to the Police Station. At Police Station, Petitioner
was made to sit outside and a complaint was got registered by Respondent No.4 in
connivance with police officials against the Petitioner. He alleged that the police
officials were in collusion and connivance with Respondent No.4 and registered a
false case against the Petitioner instead of registering a complaint of the Petitioner
regarding breaking open of lock. Petitioner was falsely implicated in proceedings
under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and was taken into custody. Respondent No.4, with
the help and connivance of police took forcible possession of flat no. 198, Swastik
Kunj, Rohini. Petitioner furnished surety bond before Special Executive Magistrate
on 29.8.2007 and was released from the jail on 30.8.2007. After his release from
jail, when he reached his flat no. 53, Swastik Kunj, where he was living for past 8
years, he noticed that outer lock of the door had been broken and Respondent No.4
had removed all belongings of the Petitioner. Petitioner approached the concerned
Police Station and brought these facts to the notice of the SHO. Instead of
registering his complaint, police officials threatened him that in case he visited the
flat again another proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. shall be initiated
against him. Petitioner made complaint to the higher police officials but in vain.
On 22.9.2007, Respondent No.4 called upon the Petitioner to return all original
documents of the flats and threatened that in case those are not returned, she would
get the Petitioner eliminated. Petitioner stated that he was forced to live in a
'dharamshala' as he was not in a position to live in flat no. 53 and also had no other
house. The Petitioner then sent a complaint to the Chief Justice of Delhi High
Court with copy to the Commissioner of Police. He has challenged the action of
the police on various grounds.
5. A perusal of proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. would show that on
receipt of DD No. 10A ASI Sultan Singh went to the spot where he found
Petitioner in drunken condition and abusing Urvashi Bansal and the labourers, who
were working in the flat no. 198, Swastik Kunj. He was ready to beat the labourers
and said that this was his house. Respondent No.4 made a complaint to him that
after her husband death, Petitioner pretended to be her brother. They had also lived
together even during the lifetime of her husband in flat no. 53, Swastik Kunj, but
separately. After death of her husband Petitioner wanted to capture her flats. She
had three flats, which were her property. She went to the flat for some labour work
and the Petitioner obstructed and was ready to beat the labours. ASI Sultan Singh
in his report observed that there was a quarrel for possession of property and some
crime might take place. However, proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were
initiated against the Petitioner and he was taken in custody.
6. Section 145 Cr.P.C. is a specific provision to be invoked if a dispute is in
respect of immovable property and it reads as under: 145. Procedure where dispute
concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace “ (1) Whenever an
Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other
information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning
any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall
make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and
requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by
pleader, on a specified date and time and to put in written statements of their
respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression “land or water” includes
buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or
profits of any such property. (3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner
provided by the Code for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as
the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being
affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute. (4) The
Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the
parties, to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in,
hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such
further evidence, if any as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether and
which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section
(1), in possession of the subject of dispute: Provided that if it appears to the
Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within
two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other
information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date
of his order under sub- section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that
party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-section (1). (5)
Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other
person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has
existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further
proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of
the Magistrate under sub-section (1) shall be final. (6)(a) If the Magistrate decides
that one of the parties was, or should under the proviso to sub-section (4) be treated
as being, in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring
such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course
of law, and forbidding all disturbances of such possession until such eviction; and
when he proceeds under the proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to possession
the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed. (b) The order made under this subsection
shall be served and published in the manner laid down in sub-section (3).
(7) When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate may cause the
legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceeding and
shall thereupon continue the inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal
representative of a deceased party for the purposes of such proceeding is, all
persons, claiming to be representatives of the deceased party shall be made parties
thereto. (8) If the Magistrate is of opinion that any crop or other produce of the
property, the subject of dispute in a proceeding under this section pending before
him, is subject to speedy and natural decay, he may make an order for the proper
custody or sale of such property, and, upon the completion of the inquiry, shall
make such order for the disposal of such property, or the sale- proceeds thereof, as
he thinks fit. (9) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the proceeding
under this section, on the application of either party, issue a summons to any
witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing. (10) Nothing
in this section shall be deemed to be in derogation of the powers of the Magistrate
to proceed under Section 107.
7. From the report of Sultan Singh, ASI it is clear that the dispute between
Petitioner and Respondent No.4 was in respect of possession of the property.
Petitioner was claiming to be in possession of flat no. 198, Swastik Kunj on the
basis of Power of Attorney and an agreement, while Respondent No.4 was
claiming it to be in her possession. Even if the property belonged to Respondent
No.4, she had admitted that Petitioner had lived in flat no. 53, Swastik Kunj with
her even when her husband was alive. It is also evident that original documents
and agreement was in custody of Petitioner. Respondent No.4 was not living at flat
no. 198, Swastik Kunj but had gone there with so called labours and the Petitioner
found that his lock had been broken. It is also undisputed from the documents
placed on record that it was Petitioner, who gave a call at '100' to police and made
a complaint about breaking open the lock by Respondent No.4. Thus, clearly the
proceedings should have been initiated against Petitioner and Respondents under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. Though police has power to initiate proceedings under Section
107 Cr.P.C. as well, but one is bound to consider if on being threatened of forcible
dispossession, a person calls police, does he commit breach of peace. If informing
authorities is breach of peace, then better people settle their dispute without
seeking police help. Moreover, it was Respondent No.4, who had gone to the flat
and broken the lock. She was not booked under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and only
Petitioner was booked under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. It is evident that the
Petitioner was wrongly arrested and booked under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and
was wrongly sent to jail. The detention of the Petitioner was illegal. In view of
specific provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C., the police should have initiated
proceedings against both under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and if required under Section
107 Cr.P.C. The attitude of police only fortifies the claim of the Petitioner that the
police was in league with Respondent No.4 and was helping Respondent No.4 to
recover possession from the Petitioner, forcibly.
8. The Petition of the Petitioner is allowed and the proceedings under Section
107/151 Cr.P.C. against him are quashed. The Commissioner of Police/Respondent
No.2 is directed to initiate proceedings against the erring police officials, who
deliberately invoked Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. in an illegal manner in a property
dispute where Section 145 Cr.P.C. was to be invoked and wrongly confined
Petitioner first in the Police Station and then in the jail. Since, Petitioner was
wrongly sent to jail under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C., I consider that Petitioner is
entitled to damages. The Petitioner may claim damages by filing a suit for tortuous
liability against the police, however, a token damage of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to
the Petitioner for wrongful confinement of the Petitioner under Section 107/151
Cr.P.C.
9. As far as other reliefs sought by the Petitioner are concerned, the Petitioner is at
liberty to take appropriate legal action before the appropriate Court for recovery of
possession of the properties, if he has any kind of right and title over the
properties. In Writ Petition, the Court cannot entertain the matter with disputed
facts. With these directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. A copy of this
judgment be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
Sd/-
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

Sanjeev Kumar Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi [ HC Delhi ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: 31.10.2007


W.P(Crl.) No. 264 of 2007

25.02.2008

Sanjeev Kumar Singh

.......Petitioner

Through :
Mr.Sanjeev Singh, Advocate


Versus

State of NCT of Delhi and ......... Respondents
others


Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura,Advocate



JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA


1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? YES.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not ? YES.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest ? YES.


: JUDGMENT



This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that proceedings against the petitioners under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C registered vide DD No.22A dated 3.2.2007 be quashed. The other prayer is that this Court should give directions in the nature of mandamus for the registration of FIR under sections 365/384/511/327/342/468/471/193/194/195 IPC and under the Prevention of Corruption Act and to give direction to investigate this matter. Petitioners also prayed for grant of compensation of Rs.10 lakhs and for issuance of guidelines for the police to conduct proceedings under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. 2. It is submitted by the petitioners that the petitioners were friends and they were booked by Delhi Police under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. for fighting with each other. While as a matter of fact no fight took place between the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 complained to PCR at 7.24 p.m. on 3.2.2007 as the said petitioner was being threatened by some police persons and an attempt was being made to extort money. The policemen in order to save their skin and to teach a lesson to the petitioners, registered a Kalandra under sections 107/151 Cr.PC. and both of them were taken into custody. Petitioners were taken to Jagjiwan Ram Hospital where policemen pressurized the Doctors to give a false report that petitioner No.1 was smelling of alcohol. The police illegally detained the petitioners in lockup of PS Samaipur Badli and threatened and mistreated them; they were not allowed to use mobile phones. A request for their re-examination at AIIMS was turned down. Petitioners were produced before the ACP J.S. Vaid who was working as Special Executive Magistrate (for short ?SEM?) on 4.2.2007 at 2.00 p.m. No copy of Kalandra was supplied to the petitioners. The petitioners produced sound sureties alongwith bail bonds before him, but instead of accepting the surety bonds sent the surety bonds to SHO PS Samaipur Badli for verification for 8.2.2007. Learned SEM did not pass any order for bail and did not even specify the surety amount and he only passed the order remanding the petitioners to JC till 17.2.2007. The counsel for the petitioners offered to give alternative sound sureties having proof of residence and identity with RC of the car and ready to furnish FDR of more than Rs.1 lakh, but the same was not even considered by the SEM. Learned counsel himself also offered to stand surety but SEM did not budge and did not consider even taking interim bail bond and the petitioners were sent to jail. The SEM on 4.2.2007 had passed only following order:-

? Produced from P.S. heard remanded to JC on 17.2.07. However, later on a typed order was substituted for above order containing surety order.

3. Petitioners were sent to Tihar Jail on 4.2.2007. On 5.2.2007 counsel for the petitioners moved two applications for withdrawal of earlier sureties and fresh sureties, and the bail bond was accepted only on 5.2.2007 for an amount of Rs.15,000/- and not for Rs.5000/- as recorded by the SEM in his fabricated order dated 4.2.2007.

4. The status report filed by the respondent shows that on 3.2.2007 Head Constable Krishan Kumar alongwith Constable Virender Kumar were on the petrolling duty in the area of PS Samaipur Badli. When they reached near wine shop at CW Block, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar they found a gathering of there and somebody was shouting. They found two persons were fighting with each other; abusing and threatening each other under the influence of liquor. Head Constable separated them with great difficulty. The two persons were the petitioners and their addresses of Rohini and Samaipur Badli were given in the report itself. It is submitted that the petitioner Sanjeev was threatening petitioner Dalip Gupta that his brother was a magistrate and local police salutes him, and that he should bring liquor for him otherwise he will finish him. Despite intervention, they continued quarreling. Both were non- cooperative at the time of their medical examination. They were produced before the SEM on 4.2.2007 and SEM directed issuance of notice u/s 107/151 to show cause as to why petitioners should not be ordered to execute personal bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety each in the like amount to keep peace and notice this effect was given to them. The petitioners desired to contest the same and SEM ordered them to execute personal bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety of the like amount. As they failed to execute their bail bonds as ordered, they were remanded to JC till 17.2.2007. On 5.2.2007 sureties for petitioners appeared and executed their bail bonds which were accepted and release warrants were prepared.

5. It is also stated that petitioners filed complaints against police officials. The complaints were enquired into by the vigilance branch and found to be false. 6. It is apparent from perusal of the record that both the petitioners had permanent residential addresses of Delhi. They were apprehended by the police under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. on the charge of abusing, threatening and quarelling with each other. Record shows that the SEM though passed an order for release of the petitioners on 4.2.2007 on executing of personal bond of Rs.5000/- with one surety but the bail bond accepted by the SEM was of Rs.15,000/-. Record also shows that the bail bonds were accepted on 5.2.2007.

7. The status report filed by the police does not explain as to how when the surety demanded was for Rs.5000/-, the bail bond accepted by SEM was for Rs.15000/-. The allegation of the petitioners that no order for bail was made on 4.2.2007 and the petitioners were sent to JC on 4.2.2007 without passing any bail order and their bail bonds were not entertained on that day are therefore, well founded. The order dated 4.2.2007 which requires the petitioners to execute bail bond for Rs.5000/- was not actually in existence and seem to have been manipulated later on. Had this order been in existence, SEM would have asked and accepted the sureties of only Rs.5000/- and not of Rs.15000/-.

8. The Petitioner has also alleged manipulation of MLCs and other papers. A perusal of MLC shows that Mr. Sanjeev Kumar was examined by doctor at 9.00 p.m. There is over-writing on time of Dalip Gupta where 9 seems to be converted to 8. The plea taken in the status report that there was inadvertent error in writing of the time of medical examination of both the petitioners, does not seem to be true. There was no reason for doctor to put two different times in the MLCs. More over two MLCs show that MLC of Sanjeev Kumar was prepared on a printed proforma of the Hospital having different columns of date and time, while MLC of Dalip Gupta is on a different form. It is also seen that the remarks that patient was non-cooperative for medical examination and patient misbehaved with the Doctor and staff, were inserted in the MLC later on and they do not form part of the same writing and same prescription. This only shows that MLC and the examination reports were got prepared by the police in order to fortify its case.

9. I also find no reason why the bail bonds should not have been accepted by the SEM. Both the petitioners are permanent residents of Delhi, their addresses were known to the police as the same form part of the report of the police. The search memo shows police had recovered PAN card from one of the petitioners and visiting cards from other petitioners. Sections 107/151 were incorporated in the Cr.P.C. to give powers to police to prevent breach of peace. These sections were not incorporated to illegally detain person and harass them or to encroach upon their fundamental rights and to keep the people in illegal confinement. The case shows a high handedness of the police and the SEM concerned. The petitioners were kept in illegal confinement because of the SEM's illegal action of not accepting the bail bond and not passing the bail order on 4.2.2007 and subsequently manipulating the order.

10. I consider that it is a fit case where a CBI enquiry should be done into the entire episode and the officials responsible for illegal detention of the petitioners should be booked and proceeded according to law. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions:-
(i) CBI is directed to register a case in respect of the allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. A copy of the writ petition alongwith a copy of this order be sent to the CBI, who shall investigate the matter within a period of 120 days and submit its report to the Court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(ii) Petitioners are granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- each to be paid by the State for their wrongful confinement by the State between 4.2.2007 and 5.2.2007, when no bail order was passed by the Special Executive Magistrate and their bail bonds were not accepted.

(iii) The proceedings under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. initiated against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.


February 25, 2008 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J.
v

Arvinder Singh Bagga Vs State of U.P. and Others [ SC ]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petn. (Crl.) No. 271 of 1993.

Decided On: 06.10.1994

Appellants: Arvinder Singh Bagga Vs. Respondent: State of U.P. and Others
Hon'ble Judges:

S. Mohan and U.P. and Others

Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R.S. Sodhi, Adv.


For Respondents/Defendant: A.S. Pundir, Adv.

Case Note: Criminal detention. Matter related prosecution of police officers for illegally detaining persons.
• Detention was of married woman in custody who was not accused on pretext of her being victim of abduction and rape which never was to her knowledge
• She was tortured by threats of violence to her and to her husband and family
• Direction given to State to take immediate steps to launch prosecution against all police officers involved in this sordid affair.
• State shall pay compensation to all persons illegally detained and humiliated for no fault of theirs.
ORDER
S. Mohan, J.
1. Pursuant to our order dated November 16, 1993, the District Judge of Bareilly has submitted his report. Mr. R.S. Sodhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Pundir, learned Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh perused the reports. Mr. R.S. Sodhi would submit that the erring Police Officers should be prosecuted and compensation should be given to such of those who have been illegally detained and suffered humiliation at the hands of the police.
2. Learned counsel for the State, though was present on an earlier occasion, did not choose to appear in spite of the matter having been passed over twice.
3. We have carefully perused the report. We are appreciative of the good work done by the learned District Judge. He had held a thorough inquiry by examining several witnesses to arrive at the truth. In our considered opinion the report is a fair one and deserves to be accepted. It is accordingly accepted.
4. The report in no uncertain terms indicts the police. It inter alia states:
On a careful consideration of all the evidence on record in the light of the surrounding circumstances I accept the claim of Nidhi that she was tortured by the police officers on 24th, 25th and 26th July, 1993. On 24.7.93 she was pressurised by J.C. Upadhyaya S.H.O., Sukhpal Singh, S.S.I, and Narendrapal Singh S.I. and threatened and commanded to implicate her husband and his family in a case of abduction and forcible marriage thereafter. She was threatened with physical violence to her husband and to herself in case of her default and when she refused her family members were brought in to pressurise her into implicating them. On 25th July 1993 she was jolted out of sleep by Sukhpal Singh S.S.I. and made to remain standing for a long time. She was abused and jostled and threatened by J.C. Upadhyay, Sukhpal Singh and Narendrapal Singh with injury to her body if she did not write down the dictated note. Sukhpal Singh SSI even assaulted her on her leg with Danda and poked it in her stomach. She did not yield to the pressure. Then, on 26.7.1993 she was given filthy abuses and threatened by J.C. Upadhyay and Sukhpal Singh for writing a dictated note. She was pushed and jostled by them both. Sukhpal Singh S.S.I. hit her with a danda on her leg and made threatening gestures aiming his Danda on her head. Ultimately they both succeeded in making her write a note dictated by them whose contents were those which were incorporated by the investigating officer in his case diary as her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter on 27th July she was purported to be taken by K.C. Tyagi to the Court for the recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. but was taken by J.C. Upadhyay, S.H.O. to Chauki Chauraha Police outpost and kept there and brought to the police station and kept there. She was despatched from there to Nari Niketan only at 5 P.M. When A.C.J.M. II had passed orders for Nidhi being kept at Nari Niketan Bareilly K.C. Tyagi I.O. was under obligation to take her from court to Nari Niketan straightway without any delay
whatsoever but she was brought back to the police station and lodged there and only afterwards she was despatched from there for Nari Niketan. Then on 29.7.93 while being taken to the court for the recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Nidhi was brought from Nari Niketan to the police station and there J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O. commanded her to speak that which he had asked her to speak and if she did not make her statement accordingly and went with Charanjit Singh then she would not be spared by him and he would ensure that she underwent miserable life time. He further told her that if she cultivated enmity with the police its consequnces were only too obvious. So the torture extended uptil 29.7.93. Torture is not merely physical, there may be mental torture and psychological torture calculated to create fright and submission to the demands or commands. When the threats proceed from a person in Authority and that too by a police officer the mental torture caused by it is even more grave.
5. This clearly brings out not only highhandedness of the police but also uncivilised behaviour on their part. It is difficult to understand why Sukhpal Singh, S.S.I. assaulted Nidhi on her leg with Danda and poked it in her stomach. Where was the need to threaten her? As rightly pointed out in the report that torture is not merely physical but may even consist of mental and psychological torture calculated to create fright to make her submit to the demands of the police?
A further reading of the report shows:
(i) fabrication;
(ii) illegal arrest;
(iii) without personal knowledge or credible information that the arrested persons were involved in a congnizable offence; and
(iv) illegality of verbal order of arrest not contemplated under Section 55 Cr. P.C.
This again is a blatant abuse of law.
6. The report clearly holds Narendrapal Singh S.I. of indulging in illegal arrest and detention in arresting Charanjit Singh Bagga and Rajinder Singh Bagga. Further, both of them were tortured as they were given Danda blows at police station on 23rd July, 1993. The report blames J.C. Upadhyay, S.H.O. and K.C. Tyagi, I.O. for the wrongful detention of Nidhi. It concludes :
The detention of a married woman in custody who is not an accused on the pretext of her being a victim of abduction and rape which never was to her knowledge and to the knowledge of the police officers concerned aforesaid is itself a great mental torture for her which cannot be compensated later but here we have found that she was tortured otherwise also by threats of violence to her and to her husband and his family and was given physical violence calculated to instil fear in her mind and compel her to yield and to abandon her marriage with Charanjit Singh Bagga which had been duly performed in Arya Samaj Bhoor and which had been duly registered in the office of Registrar of Hindu Marriages under the U.P. Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1973 framed by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. XXV of 1955). She was made to write a statement as commanded by J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O. and Sukhpal Singh SSI on 26.7.93 which was reproduced by the I.O. in the case diary as her statment under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The physical and mental torture was given to Nidhi on 24th July, 1993 and 25th July, 1993 by J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O., Sukhpal Singh and SSI and Narendrapal Singh S.I. but on 26.7.93 it was done by only J.C. Upadhyay S.H.O. and Sukhpal Singh S.S.I. and there was no participation of K.C. Tyagi I.O. in the torture and harassment dated 24.7.93, 25.7.93 and 26.7.93.
7. On a perusal of all the above, we are really pained to note that such things should happen in a country which is still governed by the rule of law. We cannot but express our strong displeasure and disapproval of the conduct of the concerned police officers. Therefore, we issue the following directions :
1. The State of Uttar Pradesh will take immediate steps to launch prosecution against all the police officers involved in this sordid affair.
2. The State shall pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 to Nidhi, Rs. 10,000 to Charanjit Singh Bagga and Rs. 5,000 to each of the other persons who were illegally detained and humiliated for no fault of theirs. Time for making payment will be three months from the date of this judgment. Upon such payment it will be open to the State to recover personally the amount of compensation from the concerned police officers.
8. Writ Petition shall stand disposed of in view of the above terms.