Complaints filed by citizens against wrongdoing by police officers are often taken lightly and citizens are not believed at all, the Bombay High Court recently observed, noting that an order was passed in August 2013 directing senior leaders of Maharashtra Police. not to resort to preliminary investigation against the police, who arrest persons named in the nature of the cases which do not permit the apprehension or apprehension of the accused.

Divisional bank a Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande noted that in the present case, the petitioner’s husband – Ratna Vannam, was “illegally arrested” in September 2012 on a non-cognizable (NC) document filed by a neighbor alleging illegal construction of the petitioner’s house in Sion area of ​​Mumbai. The court ordered a compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the petitioner for the illegal custody of her husband.

In its judgment made available on Tuesday (November 19), the court said despite an order (not to resort to preliminary inquiry) given more than a decade ago, the Maharashtra police appear to have not yet decided to comply the same thing.

“We have already expressed our anguish in no uncertain terms in our order dated August 14, 2013, particularly by noting that allegations against police officers are taken very lightly and casually and citizens are not taken for granted and here is a classic example,” the judges emphasized, adding that in this case, despite the court’s orders, the state conducted a departmental investigation and instead of commenting on the serious irregularities in the arrest of the petitioner’s husband, the collection of the fines 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 superiors within the Police Department to ensure compliance with our orders of 08/14/2013, if permitted and possible after more than a decade.” said the bank.

According to the facts of the case, in September 2012, the petitioner and her husband roped in some construction workers to repair their house, which was deteriorating. The neighbours, allegedly demanded Rs 20,000, however, the petitioner refused to pay and went to Wadala TT Police Station to report the same. However, their complaint was not taken up. Later, they were informed that the five construction workers who were repairing their house, were arrested together with the petitioner’s husband, on a complaint filed by the neighbor alleging that the same construction was illegal.

Police Officer – Tukaram Jadhav asked the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs 12,000 to release her husband and Rs 1,200 for each worker. She somehow managed to free the workers by paying the required amount, but failed to pay for the husband. And finally, he was released on bail through a magistrate, paying a fine of 5,000 lei. It was further alleged that before arresting the petitioner’s husband, Jadhav demanded Rs 10,000 from her to close the case himself.

In justifying the arrest, the respondent authorities cited provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, which empowers the police to make arrests. However, the court said that the provisions under which the petitioner’s husband was arrested did not provide for detention or arrest.

“Even supposing that there was power of arrest, it did not make a police officer to make the arrest compulsory, and from the police log, where the entries are made, it is clearly recorded that since the petitioner was booked under Section 33. (T ), was made to pay the prescribed fine, but he refused to pay the fine and also refused to resort to the other remedies under the law explained to him and was therefore arrested.” the judges noted.

The Tribunal expressed its astonishment at the approach of the respondent authorities as what was expected of them under the order dated 14th August 2013 was an inquiry into the dereliction of duty/misconduct under the Service Rules but instead authorities recorded that no evidence was adduced except the complainant and her husband, no finding of guilt was recorded in this regard against Jadhav, the court observed.

“We express that the case of arrest under the above circumstances is a classic example of abuse and misuse of power by the police and for their act, the petitioners suffered and we noted that despite our directions, no action was taken in in view of which disciplinary proceedings are initiated against Jadhav”, the bench said while ordering a compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the petitioner.

Appearance:

Advocate Suvidha Patil appeared for the petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor DJ Haldankar represented the state.