'Such Tactics Need To Be Nipped In The Bud': Gujarat HC Criticizes Police For Misusing PASA Act To Settle Personal Disputes Between Parties
The Gujarat High Court recently took note of the rampant misuse of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (PASA Act) by the Police authorities to settle scores between private parties. While dealing with an application filed by the Petitioner apprehending his detention under PASA Act in connection to the offence of kidnapping/ extortion, a Single Bench of Justice...
The Gujarat High Court recently took note of the rampant misuse of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (PASA Act) by the Police authorities to settle scores between private parties.
While dealing with an application filed by the Petitioner apprehending his detention under PASA Act in connection to the offence of kidnapping/ extortion, a Single Bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay observed,
"This is one of such examples, where it is the police authorities who take upon such responsibility to settle the financial transaction / disputes between the parties, with the aid / threat of PASA."
It may be noted that the PASA Act was brought to curb the menace of 'dangerous persons', by preventive detention.
Section 2(c) of the Act defines a dangerous person as someone who either by himself or as a member of the leader of the gang habitually commits or attempt to commit or abets the commission of certain offences under IPC, Arms Act, etc.
The law was later extended to cybercriminals, loan sharks and sexual offenders amongst the others.
In the instant case, though the Act had not been invoked however, the Court was informed by the Govt. Pleader that the sponsoring Authority did intend to send the proposal to detain the petitioner under PASA, qua the offence in question.
In this backdrop, the Single Bench noted that there is rampant misuse of the Act.
At the outset it observed that a plain reading of the complaint under Sections 365 (Kidnapping or abducting), 386 (Extortion by putting a person in fear of death), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 114 (Abettor present when offence is committed) and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of IPC, makes it clear that, it is entirely a "private dispute" between few individuals, that too in the personal financial transaction.
It then recalled a case wherein a lady was required to remain in jail for about two months, for similar type of allegations. In the said case titled Dimple v. State Of Gujarat, the High Court had observed,
"the detaining authority fell in error in treating the activities of the petitioner as prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The distinction between 'the law and order' as 'the public order' needs to be kept in mind."
The instant case, the Bench said, is certainly not the case where the petitioner could be termed as a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PASA. It observed,
"The filing of such FIR and the readiness of the police to register the FIR itself is an aspect, which need not be gone into in this case, however suffice it to hold that it is more an arm- twisting by the complainant with the aid of local police authorities. Such tactics need to be nipped in the bud."
In this backdrop, the Bench proceeded to grant interim protection to the Petitioner from any coercive action by holding that in case detention order under the PASA Act is passed against him, then it shall not be executed for a period of one month from the date of service thereof.
Case Title: Rohitbhai Laxmanbhai Luni v. Commissioner Of Police, Surat & Ors.
Read Order