P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. A letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India by the petitioner has been taken up as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on being marked to this Court by the Supreme Court. In her letter to the Chief Justice of India, the petitioner has stated that she is a practising advocate of this Court and a divorcee with two children, who are studying in Puttaparthy. On 27-2-1995, three persons were taken illegally by Rajendra-Nagar Police and allegedly beaten black and blue. Their mother got a petition filed before this Court of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus on 2-3-1995. Sri. E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, who was then the Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has alleged, came to her residence on 6-3-1995, at about 6.30 p.m. and asked her to withdraw the writ petition as the then Home Minister was interested. When she refused to do so, Sri Bhagiratha Rao threatened her with dire consequences and left her place. She has alleged, 'Before this incidence, for one and half year Mr. E. V. B. Rao continuously harassing me by regular visits and letters requesting me to marry him and stay as second wife as he was holding PP's post and having respect to his age I could not complain to anybody.' Taking advantage of his office, according to the petitioner, Shri Bhagiratha Rao activated the Inspector and office in-charge of Nallakunta Police Station to arrest her and she was taken to the police station by the latter around 7.45 p.m. on the same date i.e., 6-3-1995. She was beaten very badly and was asked to sign on blank papers and when she refused, she was threatened by the Inspector of Police that he could make her stand naked in the police station the whole night. When, however, she strongly protested, she was shifted to Central Crime Station by the Inspector at about 3.00 a.m. in the morning of 7-3-1995. She was kept at one or the other police station for more than 26 hours and on 7-3-1995, at about 9.40 pm., she was taken to the VIth Metropolitan Magistrate's residence and, 'without First Information Report, without Crime Number, without charges' the Magistrate granted bail and she was released by 11.30 p.m. After returning home, she found her scooter-AP-9G-6682 missing, which, according to her version, had been taken away by the police. On the following day, she shifted her residence to Barakathpura. She met some of the Judges of the Court and narrated the incidents to them and filed a petition C.C. No. 168 of 1995, on 13-3-1995, against Shri Jayaprakash Rao, Inspector of Police, Nallakunta, contending that since she had filed the above Habeas Corpus petition, he had falsely filed a criminal case against her and had been saying that unless she withdrew the Habeas Corpus Petition, she would be implicated in false cases. Petitioner has alleged, 'pamphlets were distributed by P.P. (Shri Bhagiratha Rao) and Shri Jayaprakash Rao that 'she was arrested because she was involved in immoral traffic act case and that the Inspector of Police (Shri Jayaprakash Rao) had personally seen her involving in sexual acts with one of his best friends'. The letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India has posed, if he (the Inspector of Police) had really done his duty - (1) why he had not sent her/for medical examination; (2) why did he not produce her before the Court immediately; (3) why had he not taken a lady constable and panchas when he entered her residence and why had he not taken her to Court and asserted,
'But till now no enquiry has taken place. The then Advocate General concerned the police and tried to compromise to withdraw the case If I don't further proceed and this was posted to 4-4-1995.
On 3-4-1995, at about 6.30 p.m. Mr. E. V. B. Rao came to my residence place with a bundle of pamphlets saying that if I don't oblige his wish he is going to distribute the pamphlets and will never allow the police for compromise saying this he tried to outrage my modesty. When I started shouting my neighbours telephoned to police and police immediately arrested Public Prosecutor from my residence and took to P.S. Kachiguda and booked case against him under Section 448, 509 I.P.C. which are bailable and being Public Prosecutor he could manage the police and booked me under Sections 420 and 417 I.P.C. which are non-bailable.
Here it is surprising to say that no lady should go to Police Station to complaint against a man who is holding a prestigious post. First I thought of suicide but as there is no one to look after my children, I could not dare this.'
She has, in the letter, requested as follows :
'I am requesting you to conduct CB CID enquiry and let all the facts came out. You are not only saving a lady's life but also profession where lady advocate should practice fearlessly and fairly.'
The petitioner has also filed Criminal Petition No. 864 of 1995, to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 52 of 1995, dated 6-3-1995, on the file of Nallakunta Police Station, which is allegedly registered under Sections 3 and 4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, against her. It appears the Bar Council of the State issued notice to the petitioner alleging professional misconduct as well as to Shri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, the then Public Prosecutor and the latter filed before this Court Writ Petition No. 9490 of 1995, questioning the notice of the Bar Council of the State, The said petition has, however, since been disposed of, but the proceeding before the Bar Council has proceeded with an order or removal of the petitioner from its roll, against which she has appealed before the Bar Council of India and the latter had stayed the order of the State Bar Council, vide its order in DCL/D/792/96 dated 22-6-1996. It transpired in the course of the hearing that the petitioner on the one hand and the fourth respondent Shri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao on the other hand were instrumental in lodgment of cases against each other and having noticed that the number of cases pending investigation had gone to 7 (seven), a Bench of this Court directed for transfer of all the cases, including Crime No. 52 of 1995, dated 6-3-1995, of Nallakunta Police Station, to C.B.C.I.D. to get them investigated by a specially appointed Police Officer for the said purpose. Eventually, Shri D. Gopala Krishnam Raju, Deputy Inspector General of Police, PCR Cell, C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad took up the investigation into the seven cases registered against either the petitioner or the fourth respondent (Shri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao). Shri Raju submitted the reports of investigation in respect of Crime No. 51 of 1995, under Sections 3 and 4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, of Nallakunta Police Station; Crime No. 60 of 1995, under Sections 448 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code of Kachiguda Police Station; Crime No. 61 of 1995, under Sections 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code of Kachiguda Police Station; Crime No. 94 of 1996, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code of Chikkadpally Police Station and reported that investigation into the Crime No. 35 of 1995, under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code of Chikkadapally Police Station; Crime No. 379 of 1995, under Sections 448 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code of Chikkadapally Police Station and Crime No. 380 of 1995, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code of Chikkadapally Police Station could not be completed as the local police had claimed that it had completed the investigation in Crime No. 379 of 1995, and already reported under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he advisedly had filed a petition seeking permission to further investigate under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which application he was awaiting orders and crucial documents pertaining to Crime No. 35 of 1995, were not forthcoming for which he was making all efforts and a few witnesses in Crime No. 380 of 1995, and 379 of 1995, were still to be examined. In his report in respect of Crime No. 52 of 1995, the Officer (Shri Raju) has appended the following remark;
'Although facts and circumstances of the case as well as oral and documentary evidence collected show the needle of suspicion towards alleged activities of the accused, no legally admissible evidence to substantiate the charge under Sections 3 and 4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act could be collected. When information was received regarding alleged offence on 6-3-1995, the Inspector of Police, Nallakunta Police Station did not cause discreet enquiry into the matter. Not did he deploy any decoy either to verify the information or to assist in the raid. He hurriedly swung into action and raided the suspected premises without observing formalities contemplated under law resulting in loss of evidence essential to establish the alleged offence.'
After the receipt of the above reports, a Bench of this Court on 10-6-1996, felt it desirable to record as follows :-
'While we do see reason to leave orders as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure on any report that police submits in the Court of the Magistrate for necessary orders, on the report in Crime No. 52 of 1995, for orders by the VI Metro-politan Magistrate, Hyderabad, we do see reason for final disposal of the writ petition to direct the officer i.e., Mr. D. Gopala Krishnam Raju to also examine whether Mr. E. V. Bhageeratha Rao, who was the Public Prosecutor at the relevant time, could in any manner abuse his official position and get such action registered against the petitioner for which there is no legal evidence at all and while investigating which case the concerned Inspector of Police, Nallakunta Police Station, failed to observe necessary legal formalities. The above is necessary for any final reports under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 60 of 1995, Crime No. 61 of 1995, and Crime No. 94 of 1996. There appears to be one fact established that Mr. E. V. Bhageeratha Rao, notwithstanding the strained relationship and open adversity with the petitioner, was found present in her house and was taken by the police at some occasions from her house. Since, however, final report has been submitted and the officer has opined in Crime No. 94 of 1996, and Crime No. 60 of 1995, that complaint is false, it is necessary to see whether the petitioner, who is the complainant, should be charged of the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code and appropriate action is taken against her. In the two cases in which the Investigating Officer has reported the cases false as well as in Crime No. 61 of 1995, in which he was reported mistake of fact it appears necessary to observe that the VI Metropolitan Magistrate while considering the report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall also see that notwithstanding the strained relationship and serious allegations levelled against him, Mr. E. V. Bhageeratha Rao was found present in the house of the petitioner and if there was nothing existing between the petitioner and Mr. E. V. Bhageeratha Rao, why after all he was found in her house.
Since the investigating officer has asked for further time to complete investigation in the abovementioned three cases and it appears necessary orders for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are required to be made in Crime No. 379 of 1995. We are inclined to accept the request of the Special Police Officer and order accordingly that he should make all endeavours to complete investigations in all matters within one month from today and direct that without waiting for any further report the VI Metropolitan Magistrate shall proceed on the report submitted by the Special Police Officer in Crime No. 52 of 1995, Crime No. 60 of 1995, Crime No. 61 of 1995, and Crime No. 94 of 1996, aforementioned. Final orders, however, in the writ petition shall be passed after receiving further report in the matter from the Special Police Officer.
Petitioner has represented that since matter in the instant proceeding concerns her person and profession and she has made efforts to bring her sufferings to the knowledge of the Court by way of representations, a public hearing of the matter should be avoided. The course that the Court can adopt for any further hearing in the matter thus will be a camera hearing, if and when necessary, but until such occasion comes we do not see any reason to order for a camera hearing.'
2. Shri Raju, Deputy Inspector General of Police, PCR Cell, C.I.D. has since submitted all the reports.
3. To complete the narration of facts and events, we have to record that the Officer, who was asked to investigate the case, has found that allegations in Crime No. 35 of 1995 of Chikkadapally Police Station as respects involvement of the petitioner along with others in the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are supported by the evidence and accordingly in respect of the said offences, he has submitted the report for action against the petitioner and other named accused. In respect of other cases, he has opined there is truth in the allegation of the petitioner that Shri Bhagiratha Rao visited her on the dates mentioned by her in the reports to the police, but allegations that he was involved in any cognizable offence otherwise are not supported by any cogent evidence, except the assertions of the petitioner and some oral support to her evidence by a Clerk, who has been working under her. In respect of Crime No. 52 of 1995, the fact that the petitioner was taken to the police station is not disputed, except insofar as the statement in the counter-affidavit by the Inspector of Police - Shri Jayaprakash Rao is concerned. He has stated, inter alia, besides denying the allegations levelled against him by the petitioner, that he received a telephonic complaint on 6-3-1995, at about 9 p.m. that the petitioner was running a brothel house. The police went to her house after verifying the information at 10.15 p.m. Details show, according to him, the arrest was effected are stated in the remand report dated 7-3-1995, and investigations revealed that the petitioner was running a brothel house and was offering sexual acts. He has asserted 'I obtained a search warrant from the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Along with two women constables and other staff members I proceeded to the house No. 2-1-435, Nallakunta' and stated -
'There we found that one Shiva standing outside the house and on enquiry he stated that nobody was present in the house. We disbelieved the version of Mr. Shiva and along with the panchas and the staff opened the door of the house and found the petitioner and one Venkata Swamy indulging in sex. The petitioner and the said Venkata Swamy immediately dressed up themselves. On the interrogation, the said Mr. Venkata Swamy revealed that a person by name Mr. Shiva was acting as a pimp and had solicited on behalf of the petitioner. He also stated that he is a frequent visitor to her house and on the said date as there are no other girls available, she had offered herself. The petitioner was apprehended from the scene of offence and produced before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate on 7-3-1995. It is pertinent to mention that on 7-3-1995, the petitioner did not make any of the said allegations to the Magistrate. The allegation that we created an unlawful scene, abused and used filthy language and that she was also beaten and made to move the different police stations till 7-3-1995 at 9 p.m. are all false.'
4. Records received from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate concerned in connection with Crime No. 52 of 1995, however, reveals that the alleged telephonic call was that of Shri Bhagiratha Rao, the then Public Prosecutor, which was to the effect that the petitioner was organising prostitution in the premises in which she lived at house No. 2-1-435, Nallakunta as well as offering herself for sexual acts and 'by doing so she is geting bad name to the legal profession'. The Inspector of Police - Shri Jayaprakash Rao was granted some sort of search warrant by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kachiguda Division, Hyderabad who has said 'since there is no time to obtain warrant from First Class Judicial Magistrate, I hereby authorise Shri Jayaprakash Rao, Inspector of Police, Nallakunta, to proceed to the above house, search and arrest, if any one is indulging in any immoral acts.' Although there is an attempt by Shri Jayaprakash Rao to suggest that he was not involved in any sort of detention of the petitioner, there are statements in the case diary of some of the police officers, which show that it was Shri Jayaprakash Rao who had taken the petitioner to the police station and it was at his behest that she was sent to Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad and the two women police constables, who, according to the statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had accompanied Shri Jayaprakash Rao at the time of the search of the house of the petitioner and her arrest, in their statements before Shri D. Gopala Krishnam Raju, have not supported his version that they had accompanied him at the time of the search of the house of the petitioner and appear to discredit completely the story of the search and arrest as narrated by the third respondent - Jayaprakash Rao in his affidavit before this Court.
5. It is clear from the facts, as above, that everything has not been normal with the petitioner and Shri Bhagiratha Rao, the fourth respondent, who was the Public Prosecutor at the relevant time. A prosecutor, appointed under Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is one selected by procedure of law and has to be a person of proven integrity and character and great distinction at the Bar. There are sufficient materials on the record which show that the petitioner and the fourth respondent-Shri Bhagiratha Rao, were associates for quite sometime and if the petitioner's version is true they had fallen out when Shri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao proposed to her to marry and to be his second wife, a fact which has not been denied. Shri Bhagiratha Rao (fourth respondent) is the hidden complainant, upon whose report the third respondent-Jayaprakash Rao acted and arrested the petitioner without warrant, under some sort authorisation by the Additional Commissioner of Police at late hours of the evening and taken to the Police Station. Although there is an attempt to deny the detention at the police station, it is evident that the petitioner was not produced in the Court until her production on the following day at the residence of the Magistrate and release on bail without there being any First Information Report or any other material produced before him. A pamphlet was published and hands of the fourth respondent - Shri Bhagiratha Rao can be seen as it carried the version he created for the lodgment of the complaint with the police against the petitioner and incorporated, as a part of contents of the pamphlet, the statement of Shri Jayaprakash Rao, the third respondent. The fourth respondent is said to have visited the petitioner in connection with the Habeas Corpus Petition, which the petitioner had filed in this Court, and threatened her and Shri Jayaprakash Rao, the third respondent was involved in the affair as it was he, who had allegedly detained them, whose release, the petitioner had sought for in the Habeas Corpus Petition. Was he one as alleged by the petitioner who attempted to criminally assault her or not, Shri Bhagiratha Rao's records reveal that he had visited the petitioner at her residence even after the above incident and in respect of such visits of Shri Bhagiratha Rao, the petitioner made complaints with the police. Of course, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, PCR Cell, C.I.D. who has investigated the case under the orders of the Court, has found the accusations against Shri Bhagiratha Rao as false. His visits to the house of the petitioner are established. Of course, there are traces of the petitioner scheming or contriving to some how implicate Shri Bhagiratha Rao in false case and there is a trail of Shri Bhagiratha Rao persistently chasing the petitioner for reasons obviously not fair and intentions not genuine.
6. We do not have sufficient material for any clear finding as to the indecencies hurled upon the petitioner at the police station and humiliations caused to her by the third respondent or any other person, yet there are sufficient materials for inference without any need to conjecture that the third respondent caused to the petitioner sufficient embarassment by putting her to shame as one who was running a brothel as defined under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, and who herself indulged in immoral sexual games. The petitioner is a lady and is having two children and is a practising advocate of this Court. She has on the one hand the position of privilege of being a member of the elite community of the lawyers and on the other hand a woman, who, even in a permissive society, has the privilege of receiving respect and protection of the society. In India, in particulars in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the soceity is not yet permissive enough to admit of men abusing women and putting them to shame even if there are good reasons to give to them such names, which the respondents have chosen to give to her. Shri Bhagiratha Rao, the then Public Prosecutor, has not conducted himself with the dignity as a member of the legal profession. He is responsible for a case which has put the petitioner to great humiliation and has not stopped in spite of clear reprimands, which, of course, have not come as orders from any authority but as disapproval of the society and the legal fraternity. The action initiated by the Bar Council of the State against him is enough for the conclusion that his age and his standing at the Bar are forgotten by him. The petitioner has also not conducted herself with the restrain that a person in the legal profession is expected to exercise and instead of using the language of law as a weapon seeking justice, she has chosen to abuse it by lodging false cases atleast by exaggerating the incidents to involve Shri Bhagiratha Rao in false cases. The above will leave one to wonder should the society be allowed to degenrate to the level of the petitioner and the fourth respondent and should the legal profession be not alerted in time to ensure that its constituents and members do not indulge in such activities which would put not them alone, but the name of the legal fraternity to shame.
7. With the concern that any person may have to the happenings as above, we however, cannot part with these proceedings without ordering that the reports submitted by the Investigation Officer-Shri D. Gopala Krishnam Raju, Deputy Inspector General of Police, PCR Cell, C.I.D. Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad will now be submitted before the appropriate Court for necessary orders under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 including the report, in which he has found the petitioner along with some other persons involved in the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and for consideration whether for lodging any false case, action should/be taken for prosecution of the complainant in Crime No. 52 of 1995, as well as other cases, including the cases lodged by the petitioner under Sections 183 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. The petitioner has been a victim of the complaint by Shri Bhagiratha Rao, who had the status of the Public Prosecutor at the relevant time, and the actions of the third respondent - Shri Jayaprakash Rao, who was the Inspector of Police and Officer-in-charge of Nallakunta Police Station. It is a fit case, in our opinion, in which the State Government must, for the acts of its servants and agents, compensate the petitioner. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 476 : (1993 Cri LJ 2899), the Supreme Court had pointed out that in case of violation of fundamental right by State's instrumentalities or servants, Court can direct the State to pay compensation to the victim or his heir by way of 'monetary amends' and redressal and this remedy is apart from the private law remedy which the petitioner can seek, if so advised. In other words of the Supreme Court.
'The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by the Supreme Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the Court moulds the relief by granting 'Compensation' in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary amends' under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of 'exemplary damages' awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a Court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law.
The Supreme Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a Civil Suit or criminal proceedings. The State, of course has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law - through appropriate proceedings.'
The above, being candid statement of law, is reiterated by the Supreme Court in yet another judgment in Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1994 (4) SCALE 466 : (1994 AIR SCW 4148).
9. In the instant case, there is no manner of doubt the petitioner's right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed by the third respondent and other officials, who arrested her and kept her under detention without complying with the requirements of law and who otherwise caused to her serious damage in reputation and prestige, both as a woman and a lawyer. Her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are affected both in respect of right to live as well as liberty. Her privacy has been invaded and her liberty curtailed. The petitioner, however, will receive what the law must give as a consequence of her wrongdoings in lodging false cases as well as for the alleged offence committed by her in due course and by the due process of law. We have given a serious consideration to the quantum of exemplary compensation since the petitioner combines the privilege of a woman in a non-permissive society of ours with that of an advocate, who lives by his or her reputation and reputation alone as a lawyer. The State, for the wrongdoings of its servants, should pay a substantial monetary compensation, but when the petitioner herself is not free from any wrongdoings in the matter and the consequences, which the course of law shall finally deliver to her aside, the Court's conscience will not permit any heavy award in her favour. Since the compensation, at this stage, is besides the compensation the petitioner can claim under the private law, we fix the amount of compensation at Rs. 50,000/- only.
10. In the result, the writ petition is ordered as follows :
(1) The Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh shall pay to the petitioner compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only within one month of the receipt of the copy of the judgment;
(2) all the reports under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in all the above seven (7) crimes registered with the police shall be submitted to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate concerned forthwith for appropriate action in accordance with law;
(3) there shall be an order of restrain upon Shri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao in visiting the petitioner at her place of abode or at any other place and the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek help of the police administration of the State in case the former is found doing anything to disturb her privacy. The Administration of the police of the State shall be obliged to provide protection to the petitioner as and when asked for by her to restrain any activity of Shri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao.
11. Order accordingly.