Citizens' Complaints Against Police Often Taken Lightly: Bombay HC Grants ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Woman For Husband's Illegal Arrest

Complaints filed by citizens against wrong doings of the police officers are often taken lightly and the citizens are not believed at all, the Bombay High Court recently observed while noting that an order was passed in August 2013, directing the higher-ups of the Maharashtra Police not to resort to preliminary enquiry against police officers, who arrest people named in the nature of cases which do not permit detention or custody of the accused.

The division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande noted that in the instant case, the husband of the petitioner - Ratna Vannam, was 'illegally arrested' way back in September 2012 on a non-cognizable (NC) filed by a neighbour alleging illegal construction of the petitioner's house in Mumbai's Sion area. The bench has ordered Rs 1 lakh compensation to the petitioner for her husband's illegal custody.

In its judgment made available on Tuesday (November 19), the bench said despite an order (not to resort to preliminary enquiry) being passed more than a decade ago, the Maharashtra Police seems to have not decided yet to comply with the same.

"We had already expressed our anguish in no uncertain words in our order dated August 14, 2013, specifically by recording that the allegations against the police officers are taken very lightly and casually and the citizens are not believed as a matter of course and here is a classic example," the judges pointed out, adding that in the instant case, despite the bench's orders, the State conducted a departmental enquiry and instead of commenting upon the gross irregularities of arresting the petitioner's husband, collecting fine amounts from her etc, the State only found him guilty of not filing an affidavit before the HC, earlier and thus imposed a fine of Rs 2000 on the officer - Tukaram Jadhav.

"We leave it to the good conscience of the higher ups in the Police Department to ensure compliance of our orders dated 14.08.2013, if it is permissible and possible after more than a decade," the bench said.

As per facts of the case, in September 2012, the petitioner and her husband had roped in a few construction workers, to repair their house, which was in a chawl. The neighbours, allegedly demanded Rs 20,000 however, the petitioner's refused to pay it and went to the Wadala TT Police Station to report about the same. However, their complaint was not taken. Subsequently, they were informed that the five construction workers repairing their house, were arrested along with the petitioner's husband, on a. complaint filed by the neighbour alleging that the same was an illegal construction.

The police officer - Tukaram Jadhav, asked the petitioner to pay Rs 12,000 fine to get her husband released and Rs 1,200 for each worker. She somehow managed to get the workers released by paying the requisite amount but failed to pay for the husband. And ultimately he was released on bail through a Magistrate by paying Rs 5,000 fine. It was also alleged that before arresting the petitioner's husband, Jadhav had demanded Rs 10,000 from her to close the case itself.

Justifying the arrest, the respondent authorities cited provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, which empowers the police to make arrests. However, the bench said that the provisions based on which the petitioner's husband was arrested, do not provide for custody or arrest.

"Even if assuming that there was power of arrest, it did not make it imperative for a police officer to effect the arrest and from the police diary, where the entries are made, it is clearly recorded that since the petitioner was booked under Section 33(T), he was required to pay the fine prescribed, but he refused to pay the fine and also refused to avail the other remedies, under the law explained to him and hence he was arrested," the judges noted.

The bench expressed astonishment by the approach of the respondent authorities, as what was expected from them pursuant to the August 14, 2013 order was an inquiry, into the act of dereliction of duty/misconduct as per the Service Rules, but instead, the authorities recorded that no evidence has come forth except that of the complainant and her husband, no finding of guilt in that regard was recorded against Jadhav, the bench noted.

"We express that the case of arrest in above circumstanced is a classic example of the abuse and misuse of the powers by the police officials and for their act, the petitioners had to suffer and we have noted that despite our direction, no action contemplated through disciplinary proceedings is initiated against Jadhav," the bench said while ordering Rs 1 lakh compensation to the petitioner.

Appearance:

Advocate Suvidha Patil appeared for the Petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor DJ Haldankar represented the State.