Subjecting Citizen To Police Scrutiny, Verification Of Personal Docs Without Any Reason Serious Invasion Of Right To Privacy: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that subjecting a citizen to police scrutiny including verification of personal documents for no good reason would entail a serious invasion of his right to privacy. Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by a complainant seeking directions on the Delhi Police to make enquiry for correct identification of private person,...
The Delhi High Court has observed that subjecting a citizen to police scrutiny including verification of personal documents for no good reason would entail a serious invasion of his right to privacy.
Justice Asha Menon made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by a complainant seeking directions on the Delhi Police to make enquiry for correct identification of private person, after both the parties indulged in a quarrel.
It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent in the kalandra proceedings was using different names and identities and therefore the police must fix his true identity.
The plea thus sought directions on the Delhi Police to make an enquiry in respect of Adhaar Cards, Voter Cards, Driving License and Pan Cards existing in the name of various names allegedly being used by the respondent individual.
Kalandra is a notice issued under sec. 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against a person against whom there is an information that he is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility or any other wrongful act leading to breach of peace or disturbance to the public.
The provision states that when an Executive Magistrate receives any such and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner was a regular complainant and that a kalandra was taken against the petitioner.
The kalandra was issued when a quarrel haf occurred after access by the petitioner's wife to the terrace was not allowed by the respondent in the kalandra. It was thus submitted that the respondent was not residing in the premises in question.
To this, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the he was not a regular complainant, however, he admitted that the kalandra was initiated against both the parties, which was later disposed of.
The petitioner however insisted that no action was taken on his complaint.
Finding no merit in the petition, the Court ordered thus:
"Subjecting a citizen to police scrutiny including verification of his personal documents for no good reason, except on the whimsical demand of the petitioner would entail a serious invasion of the respondent's right to privacy."
Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.
Title: JINDAL KUMAR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 704