Kadar Sattar Solanki Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others - Court Judgment

A.S. Oka, J.

1. Rule. The learned APP waives service for the Respondents. Taken up for final hearing. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the Respondents.

2. We have perused the reply dated 12th October, 2012 filed by Dr. Sandip Gulabrao Pakhale, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bhiwandi (West) Division, Bhiwandi, Thane.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that earlier he was a practicing Advocate. Now the Petitioner is serving as the Municipal Secretary of the Bhiwandi Nizampura City Municipal Corporartion. On 21st June, 2012, the Petitioner was plying his scooter. At about 5.45 p.m., the Petitioner reached a place known as Dhamankarnaka at Bhiwandi. The second Respondent who is the police constable came there and instructed the Petitioner to stop the vehicle. The second Respondent wanted to check his driving licence and documents of registration of the vehicle. It is alleged that the Petitioner informed the second Respondent that by mistake, he has kept the driving licence at his residence and he offered to give the licence number. It is alleged that the second Respondent abused the Petitioner and raised his hand to assault the Petitioner. It is alleged that the Petitioner avoided the blow. At that time, the third Respondent came to the spot and informed the second Respondent to take the Petitioner to the police station and register a case against him.

4. It is alleged that the Petitioner was directed to park his scooter on the side of the road and key of the scooter was snatched by the second Respondent from the Petitioner. It is alleged that the Petitioner was forced to sit on a motor-cycle of a police officer. The Petitioner was taken to Bhiwandi City Police Station. When he requested the fourth Respondent, an officer attached to the said police station to accept the oral complaint about a rude behaviour of the second Respondent, the fourth Respondent instructed the second Respondent to detain the Petitioner in a room. The second Respondent pulled the Petitioner by holding his collar and abused him. It appears that the Petitioner attempted to contact Senior Inspector of Police, Bhiwandi City Police Station, who was on leave. It is alleged that the fifth Respondent got enraged and out of vengeance, he directed that an offence should be registered against the Petitioner.

5. It is alleged that the Petitioner was kept in a room in the company of the other accused. The fan in the said room was switched off and the Petitioner was instructed not to leave the said room. It is alleged that at 7.05 p.m, the Petitioner requested the second and fourth Respondents to permit him to leave the room for offering Namaz. The said request was turned down. At about 8.00 p.m., an Advocate friend of the Petitioner came to the police station and met him in the police lock-up. Though he tried to submit an application for bail to the fourth and the fifth Respondents, the application was not accepted. It is alleged that the fourth Respondent directed the Petitioner's Advocate Shri Patil to deposit a cash amount of Rs.3,000/-. Only after deposit of the said amount, the Petitioner was released and allowed to go. It is submitted that though a representation was made to the seventh Respondent Commissioner of Police on 22nd June, 2012 for redressal of his grievances, there is no response from the seventh Respondent.

6. The contention of the Petitioner is that he was illegally picked up and detained by the police officers of Bhiwandi City Police Station thereby violating his fundamental right under article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that apart from directing initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the Respondents may be penalised by awarding costs. He invited the attention of the reply filed by Dr. Sandip Gulabrao Pakhale. He placed reliance on a decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Shri S.R. Chitnis v. The State of Maharashtra dated 22nd August, 2008 in Criminal Writ Petition No.672 of 2003 and submitted that the demand and acceptance of Rs.3,000/- is illegal. The learned APP produced for perusal of the Court the relevant file. He urged that there is no illegality committed and an offence under Section 112 read with Section 117 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 has been registered against the Petitioner. He pointed out that various offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 along with an offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code have been registered against the Petitioner. He submitted that there is no illegality committed by the police.

7. We have carefully considered the submissions. We have perused the affidavit-in-reply and the file produced by the learned APP. We have already narrated the material averments in the Petition in earlier part of the judgment. It will be necessary to make a reference to what is set out in Paragraph 2 of the affidavit-in-reply of Dr. Sandip Gulabrao Pakhale, which reads thus:-

“2. On 21.06.2012 the officers and men of Bhiwandi Town Police Station organized Nakabandi at Dhamankar Naka for checking of motor vehicles. At about 17.45 hrs., the Petitioner, who was riding on Activa Scooter, was stopped by Police Head Constable No.146 Pirjade and asked for his driving license and documents of the vehicle. The Petitioner did not have driving license and document of the vehicle. The Petitioner became furious and started shouting loudly and diverting the attention of public at him and he behaved with police in rude manners and used filthy language and he misbehaved with intent to provoke a breach of peace in a public place and used abusive and insulting words to police officers and men who were performing their lawful duties. Hence, the Petitioner was brought to the Police Station and the offence were registered against him under Section 112 r/w 117 of Bombay Police Act, under Section 130(1), 177 r/w 130(3) 177 r/w 21(17), 177, 158 r/w 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, and under Section 186 of I.P.C. and the Petitioner was asked to deposit the bail amount and he was asked to arrange for the cash security. He was allowed to go after depositing cash of Rs.3,000/-. He was given the receipt to that effect and was asked to remain present in the J.M.F.C. Court No.1 Bhiwandi tomorrow. On next date i.e. 22.06.2012 the Petitioner was chargesheeted in 1st Court of J.M.F.C. Bhiwandi, he did not attend the Court and the matter is sub-judice. The Petitioner was called by me for several times for enquiring into his allegation made against police officers and men but he did not turn up. He attended my office only after the direction of this Hon'ble Court.”

(Underline supplied)

8. It is not in dispute that the alleged offences against the Petitioner are bailable offences and on a specific query made by this Court, the learned APP on instructions stated that the Petitioner was never arrested and that as the offences were to be registered against him, he was taken to the police station.

9. It will be necessary to make a reference to the Entry No.58 in Station Diary made at 19.05 hours on 21st June, 2012. It is recorded therein that when the second Respondent stopped the Petitioner and called upon him to produce driving licence and documents of registration, he declined to produce the documents and stated that the second Respondent may do whatever he likes. It stated that he obstructed Respondent No.2 in discharge of his duties. Even the said entry does not record that the Petitioner was arrested or was brought to the police station. It merely records that the offences have been registered against the Petitioner. At about 19.50 hours at Sr. No.64, another entry of the said incident is made. A specific statement allegedly made by the Petitioner after documents were demanded from him has been reproduced in the said entry though the same does not find place in the earlier entry. The said entry records that Head Constable Pirzade directed that the Petitioner should be taken to the Police Station for prosecuting him. It is specifically recorded that a receipt was issued of the deposit taken from the Petitioner and was informed to remain present in the Court. Thus, the Station Diary notes that a deposit of Rs.3,000/- was taken from the Petitioner. It does not refer to any bail amount paid by the Petitioner. The statements made in Paragraph 2 of the affidavit of Dr. Sandip Pakhale alleges that a sum of Rs.3,000/- was taken as a cash security. The receipt which is on record in the sum of Rs.3,000/- does not record that the amount was paid either as cash bail amount or by way of deposit. Though a statement on oath has been made in the affidavit that the Petitioner was called upon to deposit the bail amount and that he has deposited the cash bail amount of Rs.3,000/-, there is no such entry in the Station Diary. On the contrary, the Station Diary does not refer to any cash bail but it refers to a deposit made of a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Thus, the statement that the sum of Rs.3,000/- was paid by way of cash security was not borne out from the Station Diary and the said statement in the affidavit appears to be factually incorrect. The contemporaneous entry made in the Station Diary that the sum of Rs.3,000/- was paid by way of deposit will have to be accepted. No provision of law could be shown to us by the learned APP which empowers such deposit to be demanded and accepted. Therefore, the action of demanding a deposit of Rs.3,000/- and accepting the same is patently illegal.

10. Paragraph 2 of the Affidavit of Dr. Sandip Gulabrao Pakhale specifically records that the Petitioner was brought by the second Respondent to the police station. When we made a specific query as to under what provisions of law, the Petitioner was forcibly taken to the police station without arresting him, the learned APP could not point out any such specific provision. There was no summons issued by the police to the Petitioner calling upon the Petitioner to remain present in the police station. Thus, neither the power conferred by the Bombay Police Act, 1951 to arrest without warrant was exercised nor appropriate process was issued for procuring presence of the Petitioner at the police station.

11. The factual scenario which emerges based on virtually admitted factual position is that the Petitioner was illegally forced by the Police to come to Bhiwandi City Police Station. There was no authority vesting in the police to take deposit of Rs.3,000/-. Though in the reply filed by Dr. Sandip Gulabrao Pakhale, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bhiwandi (West) Division, Bhiwandi, Thane, a case is made out that the Petitioner was asked to deposit bail amount and he was allowed to go after depositing cash in the sum of Rs.3,000/-, the contemporaneous record in the form of Station Diary shows that what was accepted was not the cash bail but was a deposit. It is more pertinent to note that there is no entry made in the Station Diary that the Petitioner was arrested. The entry at Sr. No.64 merely records that the deposit was taken from the Petitioner and he was asked to remain present in the Court. Therefore, the sum of Rs.3,000/- cannot be the cash bail amount. The Petitioner was illegally forced to deposit the said amount with the police.

12. The Petitioner has not sought any compensation or refund of the sum of Rs.3,000/-. The Petitioner has sought a direction to initiate inquiry against the erring police officers on the basis of the complaint dated 22nd June, 2012 submitted by the Petitioner. As far as the prayer for registration of offence against the police officials is concerned, we cannot issue a writ of mandamus and remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will have to be kept open. However, what is established is that the Petitioner was illegally brought to the police station without arresting him and he was forced to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/-. For this illegality, an inquiry will have to be held. We, therefore, propose to direct the seventh Respondent Commissioner of Police, Thane to appoint any Joint Commissioner of Police or Additional Commissioner of Police for holding a preliminary inquiry into the conduct of the concerned police officers/police constables attached to Bhiwandi City Police Station. On the basis of the report of the preliminary inquiry, further action, if any, will have to be initiated.

13. Considering the gross illegality committed by the police, this is a fit case where the State of Maharashtra should be saddled with costs quantified at Rs.15,000/-. It is for the State of Maharashtra to recover the said amount from the erring officers, if permissible, in accordance with law.

14. Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order:

ORDER:

(a) We direct the seventh Respondent-Commissioner of Police, Thane to nominate any Joint Commissioner of Police or Additional Commissioner of Police to hold a preliminary inquiry into the conduct of the concerned police officers/police constables attached to Bhiwandi Town Police Station as regards the role played by the said police officers/police constables in committing illegalities as held in this Judgment;

(b) The preliminary inquiry shall be concluded within a period of six weeks from today;

(c) A report on the preliminary inquiry in a sealed envelope shall be produced before this Court on 28^th January, 2013;

(d) On the basis of the conclusions in the preliminary inquiry, the seventh Respondent shall take steps in accordance with law;

(e) The first Respondent shall pay costs quantified at Rs.15,000/- to the Petitioner on or before the 25th

January, 2013;

(f) For reporting compliance, the Petition shall be fixed on 28th January, 2013 under the caption of “Directions”.