Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Smt. S. Swathi And Etc. vs The Station House Officer And Ors. on 21 November, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(1)ALT(CRI)112, 2003CRILJ1404, 2003 CRI. L. J. 1404, (2003) 3 ALLINDCAS 419 (AP), (2003) 3 RECCRIR 36, (2003) 1 ANDHLD 78, 2003 (1) ANDHLT(CRI) 112 AP, (2003) 1 ANDHLT(CRI) 112
JUDGMENT B.S.A. Swamy, J.
1. In view of the common question involved in both the petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.
W.P. No. 21782 of 2002
2. One Smt. S. Swathi w/o. Saly Rajasekhar, r/o. Ramachandrapuram Village, Jangareddi Gudem, West Godavari District has complained in her telegram dated 26-10-2002 addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court that the police personnel of West Godavari have arrested her husband Saly Rajasekhar on 22-10-2002 at about 10-00 p.m. near J.P. Centre, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District and illegally detained him. Apprehending danger to his life in a fake encounter by the police, she prayed for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
3. The said telegram was treated as a petition for writ of Habeas Corpus and notices were issued to the concerned.
4. Pursuant to the said notice, one Mr. B. Ramakrishna, S.I. of Police, Jangareddigudem Police Station, West Godavari District (1st respondent), filed a counter stating that the alleged detenu was not arrested by him either on 22-10-2002 or on any other subsequent date. He further stated that his enquiries revealed that the alleged detenu was arrested by the S.I. of Police, Chintalapudi Police Station, West Godavari District in Crime No. 182 of 2002 under Sections 420, 394 read with 34, IPC registered on 28-10-2002 at 4.30 p.m. and the alleged detenu is shown as accused No. 5 in the above crime. He also stated that the alleged detenu along with 8 others, including one Mr. Y. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate alleged detenu in W.P. No. 22006 of 2002). who was accused No. 1 in the above case, were arrested and they were sent to Judicial remand on 30-10-2002 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chintalapudi. He also stated that on 31-10-2002 the police filed an application before the said Magistrate for conducting test identification parade to identify the accused arrested in the above crime and who in turn requested the Chief Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry to nominate a Magistrate to conduct the test identification parade. The Chief Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry by his order dated 1-11-2002 nominated the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry to conduct the identification parade on 16-11-2002.
W.P. No. 22006 of 20025. This writ petition was taken up on file as public, interest litigation on the basis of the telegram dated 29-10-2002 given by one Smt. K.M. Padmaleela w/o. Y. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, r/o. Chtntalapudi, West Godavari District addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court stating that her husband filed a private complaint, against the Station House Officer. T. Narasapuram Police Station (2nd respondent), as a result of which FIR was issued against the SHO. In retaliation to the said complaint, the 2nd respondent with the active assistance of S.I. of Police, Chintalapudi Police Station (1st respondent in the earlier writ petition) along with 15 police constables with uniform surrounded their house at Chintalapudi at about 00-00 hours of 29th October 2002, threatened and abused by caste and taken away the alleged detenu in a private car bearing No. AP 37 5248 and wrongfully confined him. Apprehending danger to his life, she prayed to save his life from the clutches of the police officials.
6. The said telegram of Smt. Padmaleela was treated as an application for writ of Habeas Corpus and notices were served on the concerned.
7. In pursuance to the said notice, the Station House Officer, T. Narasapuram Police Station, West Godavari District (2nd respondent) filed a counter-affidavit stating that the alleged detenu Y. Rajendra Prasad is accused No. 1 in Crime No. 51 of 2002 registered under Sections 384 read with 34, IPC on 28-10-2002 at 4.00 p.m. on the complaint lodged by one Vasireddy Ramakrishna r/o. Kollivarigudem, t. Narasapuram Mandal, for an offence that occurred 15 days back. The 2nd respondent further stated that the said crime was registered on the ground that the alleged detenu along with ten others claiming themselves as members of CPI (ML) Janabalam group extracted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the de facto complainant. The 2nd respondent further stated that during the course of investigation he along with the S.I. of Police, Chintalapudi P.S. (1st respondent; In the earlier petition), and staff of Chintalapudi P.S. apprehended Y. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate (alleged detenu) at about 2.45 a.m. on 29-10-2002 and produced him and 8 others before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chintalapadi along with remand report in Crime No. 51 of 2002 on his file and the Magistrate remanded him to judicial custody for an Initial period of 15 days. In the remand report, the 2nd respondent stated that the alleged detenu was previously involved in number of cases and the State Government has also announced a reward against him. He also stated that the alleged detenu was involved in Crime No. 51 of 2002 on his file and also in Crime No. 182 of 2002 on the file of the Chintalapudi Police Station apart from being involved in several other criminal cases.
8. It is also on record that the Magistrate dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate on 30-10-2002 itself and thereafter the bail application was filed in Sessions Court on 6-11-2002.
9. Having gone through the counter-affidavits and the remand report and having entertained a doubt that the police foisted false cases against Rajendra Prasad, on 7-11-2002 we directed Mr. Rajendra Prasad to appear before this Court. Subsequently, on 12-11-2002 the learned Government Pleader attached to the learned Advocate General, brought to our notice that Mr. Rajendra Prasad was in judicial custody and his bail application was not considered by the District Court and the same was posted to 18-11-2002 as the identification parade is likely to take place on 16-11-2002. In those circumstances, on 12-11-2002 we directed Mr. Rajendra Prasad to appear before this Court on 21-11-2002, if he is released on bail. But, the order dated 12-11-2002 seemed to have not been received by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Rajahmundry and the jail authorities produced him before this Court on 18-11-2002. We directed him to be kept in Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad till this day.
10. Mr. Rajendra Prasad has categorically stated that he is practicing as an Advocate since last seven (7) years and mostly he is representing the weaker sections and trying to protect their rights. That has become an eye sore to the police. The immediate provocation for his arrest was that he filed a private complaint against the police for beating Smt. Marudodla Savitri when she had been to the police station to give a complaint. The Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case directed the said Savitri to the Community Health Centre, Chintalapudi for medical examination. The doctor certified that contusions are found on the body of the said lady.
11. Now the question to be considered in these writ petitions is whether the police acted bona fide and with good faith in arresting a practicing Advocate or he was implicated in the case falsely and kept in judicial custody even without allowing him to obtain bail from the Court?
12. We have perused the FIRs in Crime Nos. 51 and 182 of 2002 of T. Narasupuram and Chintalapudi Police Stations. Crime No. 51 of 2002 was registered at about 4-00 p.m. on 28-10-2002 at T. Narasapuram P.S. on the basis of a complaint given by one Sarangi Mariamma i.e., after Rajendra Prasad, the alleged detenu, filed a private complaint before the Magistrate on the same day.
13. Crime, No. 51 of 2002 was registered on the basis of the complaint given by one Mr. Vasireddy Ramakrishna. As per the contents of the complaint, the complainant is having 30 acres of land in Kollivaari Gudem, T. Narasapuram Mandal and Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate and nine (9) persons named therein, who are active members of CPI (ML) Janabalam group, approached him when he was near the tobacco barren in his lands on one day at about noon 20 days prior to the incident and demanded Rs. 20,000/-claiming themselves as naxallites and if the amount is not given by him, they will see that the tribal people occupy his lands. They also told him that they will come 5 days thereafter and the money should be made ready. The complainant stated in the complaint that when they met him, the above-mentioned people were also carrying knives along with them. 15 days prior to the date of the complaint all the ten of them came to him and he paid the amount to one R. K. While leaving the place they threatened him that if he gives any police complaint, he will be done to death. He also stated that having afraid of the consequences, he could not give a complaint to the police immediately. Now, having consulted his relatives, he is giving this complaint to take action against all the ten people.
14. In the above complaint, the de facto complainant has not given the particulars regarding the date on which the miscreants approached him or the date on which he paid the amount. He, however, tried to explain the delay in giving the complaint by stating that on the advice of his relatives he lodged the complaint.
15. The Station House Officer, T. Narasapuram P.S. produced the General Diary dated 26-10-2002 wherein it is recorded that one Sarangi Mariamma w/o. Sarangi Daveeda along with the Sarpanch Nalluri Ganga Rao, Upa-Sarpanch Bolla Ranga Rao, Doddigarla Veeraswamy, Toddy-tapper Danta Subba Rao came to the police station and complained that Marudodla Savitri, who was having contacts with Bolla Ranga Rao, was scolding, Mariamma without any control over her tongue under a suspicion that Mariamma also developed illicit intimacy with the said Bolla Ranga Rao. The General Diary entry further shows that Savitri was also present at the time of giving the complaint, and in his presence also Savitri scolded Mariyamma with foul language. In those circumstances, he informed Savitri that he is booking a petty case against her under Section 290, IPC and let her off on executing bail bond directing her to be present in the police station on 28-10-2002.
16. When we directed the Station House Officer to produce the bail bonds he stated that he has obtained the signatures of Savitri on a white paper, but not on any bail bonds. It is also his case that Savitri came to police station at about 10 O'clock on 28-10-2002 and he did not prepare the charge-sheet to produce her in the Court, since she came without money to pay the fine.
17. The Station House Officer himself produced a Xerox copy of the complaint given by Savitri on 12-9-2002 wherein she categorically stated that when she has gone to Davedu's house to collect the new doors got prepared by her and which were taken away by him from her house in her absence, as per the advice of the elders on 8-9-2002 at about 3.00 p.m. He brought her to the street by catching her tuft of hair, unrobed her by removing her saree and blouse, and hit her both on the stomach and head with force. She further stated in the complaint that one Choppa Gangadhara Rao, who was present at the scene, supported Daveda by observing "EE Lanjanu Ikkada Pathipettaraa" and scolded her with vulgar language. She also stated in the complaint that the incident was witnessed by Nalluri Ganga Rao, Nalluri Krishnaiah, Kothuru Veeraswami, Sankurthi Lakshmi.
18. The Station House Officer has neither made any entry in the General Diary nor registered a crime on the above complaint given by Savitri. Now he has come up with a statement that all the three of them viz., Mariyamma, Savitri and Davedu have compromised and that is why he has not registered a crime. When it is specifically alleged in the complaint that a woman was unrobed of her saree and blouse and was beaten, the Station House Officer orally states before us that since the parties have compromised, he did not register a case.
19. On the other hand, from the material papers filed along with the private com plaint filed by Savitri it is seen that on 26- 10-2002 itself she has given a complaint to the Taluk Legal Services Authority against one Choppa Gangadhara Rao stating that he was harassing and scolding her by caste name and threatening her that if he kills her nobody will come to her rescue. She also alleged several overt acts against Gangadhara Rao. She further stated in the complaint that when she has gone to police station to give complaint on 26-10-2002 the police did not take any action. She also al leged that Choppa Gangadhara Rao is openly proclaiming that he has given a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as bribe to the S.I. of Police and he will not take up her case.
20. In her private complaint, Savitri alleged that when she had been to the police station on 26-10-2002 at about 10-00 a.m. the S.I. scolded her by saying "EMAY MAALA LANJA, NEEKU ENTHA POGARE, PILAVAGANE RAAVA ANI THIDUTHU NAA JUTTU PATTUKUNI LATHI THO ISHTAM VACHINATLUGAA KOTTARU. NAAKU EDA ROMMULA PAINA, THODA MEEDA, KALLA MEEDA, VEEPU MEEDA DEBBALU TAGILAYI." She further stated that while the S.I. was beating, her saree got separated. She also alleged so many things in her complaint.
21. The Magistrate having taken her complaint on file, referred Savitri to the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Chintalapudi, who certified that there are some injuries on her body.
22. Coming to Crime No. 182 of 2002 registered on the file of Chintalapudi P.S. under Section 384 read with 34, IPC at about 4.30 p.m. on the fateful day i.e. 28-10-2002, the case of the complainant Mr. P. Sri Rama Murthy r/o Gandigudem Village is that they have ancestral property of about Ac. 25-00 and there were some disputes between his father Narayana and Krishnaiah on one side and Someswara Rao & Gangaraju on the other side. Mr. Rajendra Prasad (alleged detenu in W.P. No. 22006 of 2002) was often coming to their house and demanding Rs. 25,000/- for settling the disputes. He used to remind them that they should not forget that he is a lawyer as well as a naxallite and the complainant and others do not know how many others are with him. The complainant further stated that as they were not able to bear the torture given by Rajendra Prasad, he paid him Rs. 15,000/-about six months back. Even then also, he did not stop coming to their house and was often demanding further money. Ultimately, he paid Rs. 10,000/- two months back. The complainant also gave the names of other persons who were with Rajendra Prasad at the time of extracting the money.
23. In this case also, the complainant has not given any particulars regarding the exact nature of disputes between his father and others, whether any Court cases are pending between them, when exactly the complainant paid Rs. 15,000/- and when the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid. Though the complainant did not state where the money was given, the S.I. of Police who was physically present in the Court stated that the money was given to Rajendra Prasad at his residence which is very near to the police station. The S.I. further stated that having received the complaint he had been to the village of the complainant which is within the territorial Jurisdiction of T. Narasapuram Police Station, recorded the statements of complainant's father Narayana and paternal uncle Krishnaiah and thereafter reached the house of Rajendra Prasad at about 2-45 a.m. along with Section 1 of T. Narasapuram on the intervening night of 28 / 29-10-2002 and arrested him.
24. We have perused the statements of the complainant, Narayana and Krishnaiah recorded by the S.I. of Police. None of the individuals have given the details of the distance between their brothers, the date, time and in whose presence they paid the amount. Had they paid the amount in the office of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, at about 7.00 p.m. who is an active practitioner, as per the special report of the Magistrate called for by this Court, some clients would have definitely been there. The S.I did not bother to find out whether any persons were present at the office of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, at the time of giving money to him.
25. The S.I. came up with an explanation for the delay in giving the complaint that the complainant and others were afraid of the dire consequences as threatened by the Advocate. If that threat is true, it continues even on the day on which the complaint was given, but conveniently the S.I. states that at the instance of the relatives of the complainant, the complaint was lodged. The S.I. did not make any enquiry from the villagers whether there are any real disputes between the two groups and whether Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate had been to the house of the complainant, leave alone the particulars of payment and whether there is any evidence to show that the amount was paid, but rushed to the house of Rajendra Prasad and arrested him.
26. It is also interesting to see that in the remand report he stated that Mr. Rajendra Prasad is involved in number of cases and the State Government announced a reward against him, as he was moving with nexallites previously and has connections with them. In the normal course if the wanted person is a notorious criminal having affiliation to any banned organization and his arrest in the normal course is highly Impossible and his movement will further endanger the public safety, the Government will announce reward to the informants for the clues given by them leading to his arrest, but not in every case where the accused moves clandestinely avoiding arrest. Keeping this fact in mind we directed the S.I., to produce any document showing the announcement of reward against Rajendra Prasad, Advocate and when it was announced. The S.I, orally stated before us that by mistake he has stated so in the remand report. We are of the considered view that such a statement of the S.I. of Police is far from truth and such a false allegation was made in the remand report to prejudice the mind of the Magistrate at the time of considering the bail application.
27. The S.I. of Police further stated in the remand report that Mr. Rajendra Prasad is involved in number of cases. In the order passed by us directing the S.I. of Police to appear before this Court, we directed him to produce all the material particulars of the cases that were registered against Rajendra Prasad, Advocate. Both the Sub-Inspectors of Police of police stations T. Narasapuram and Chintalapudi have referred to two crimes viz. 1) Crime No. 1 of 1992 registered under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 324 read with 109 IPC which resulted in acquittal of Rajendra Prasad long back and 2) Crime No. 23 of 1990 registered under Section 307 read with 34, IPC i.e., attempt to murder, numbered as Sessions Case No. 116 of 1990, and the same was also ended in acquittal on 15-7-1990 i.e. 12 long years back. Except these cases and the present two cases registered against Rejendra Prasad, no case is pending against him at any point of time.
28. As already stated supra, we called for a special report from the Magistrate to find out the conduct of Mr. Rajendra Prasad, who is practicing Advocate. The special report of the Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi clearly indicates that Mr. Rajendra Prasad is a regular practicing Advocate in the Court having sufficient volume of work both on civil and criminal sides. In our view, the charges that were levelled against him were cooked up. In the normal course, the moment the police produced him before the Magistrate, he would have enlarged him on bail, but the police could successfully prejudice the mind of the Magistrate to dismiss the bail application on the same day. When a bail application was filed before the Sessions Court, the public have not co-operated with the Sessions Judge in disposal of the same taking the stand that test identification parade has to take place on 16-11-2002. When Rajendra Prasad, being a practicing Advocate in Chintalapudi for over seven years and the complainants named him as an accused by name, we do not know for what purpose this test identification parade was contemplated by the police, if not to detain him in Jail preventing the Court from granting bail. Ultimately the identification parade has not taken place when the de facto complainant himself has not turned up.
29. The S.I. of Police now gives an explanation that the complainant having appeared before the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate expressed his inability to identify the accused. If that is so, it is not known how the complainant gave the names of the accused without knowing them. In fact we directed the police to produce the complainants before this Court to know the truth or otherwise of the contents of the complaint. Both the S.H. Os. stated before the Court that the complainants are absconding from their villages.
30. In the above factual background we have no hesitation to hold that only after the lodging of private complaint by Rajendra Prasad on behalf of Marudodla Savitri on 28-10-2002 and the Court taking cognizance of it, both the Station House Officers of T. Narsapuram and Chintalapudi police stations registered crimes against Rajendra Prasad and others within half an hour difference i.e., at 4-00 and 4-30 p.m. and both of them investigated the matter together, proceeded to the house of the accused at the same time to arrest him. All this will clinchingly establish that they have not only implicated a respectable practicing Advocate but also foisted false cases and detained him, illegally for nearly 20 days even without allowing him to get the bail. If this is the situation of a person who appears before the Court on behalf of the litigant public, what would be the position of a common man in the hands of the police. We have to place on record that the police are violating the law than protecting the law and order in the society. In the light of the sequence of events, we hold that the police foisted the complaints against Mr. Rajendra Prasad, in retaliation to the private complaint filed by him on behalf of one Marudodla Savitri.
31. Since we have taken the view that the cases registered against all the accused were foisted by the police, the FIRs issued against them are liable to be quashed, as the police have interfered with the liberty of citizens without any authority under law and the action of the police is in violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
32. Since crimes have been registered with mala fide intention and the proceedings have been maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Advocate, Rajendra Prasad, we are constrained to quash those crimes in order to" prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice and allow the writ petitions. The crimes registered against the alleged detenus and the other accused shown in the FIRs are quashed. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintalapudi is directed to set at liberty all the accused shown in Crime Nos. 51 and 182 of 2002 registered by the Station House Officers, Chintalapudi and T. Narasapuram Police Stations respectively forthwith, if they are not required in any other crime.
33. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Prasad submitted that since the police have illegally detained his client by violating his right to life and liberty it is a fit case to grant compensation to him which may eventually result in checkmating the high handed action of the, police officers who have no respect for law or the life and liberty of the citizens of this country. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar , Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, .
34. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decisions. The Station House Officers, T. Narasapuram and Chintalapudi police stations have committed the following illegalities :
(1) They did not register a crime or make a G.D. entry on the complaint given by Marudodla Savitri on 12-9-2002 complaining that she was stripped off her clothes and beaten;
(2) They secured the presence of some persons and obtained complaints to foist cases against Mr. Rajendra Prasad;
(3) They falsely mentioned in the remand report that Mr. Rajendra Prasad involved in many crimes and there is a reward on his head;
(4) They falsely mentioned before the Court while opposing the bail application that Mr. Rajendra Prasad is required for identification, though he is a well known person in the locality as well as the alleged complainants in both the crimes;
(5) They failed to produce the alleged de facto complainants in both the crimes before this Court when specifically directed, on the pretext that they were absconding from their villages;
(6) They resorted to arrest Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate at 2.00 a.m. with a view to humiliate him, though his house is opposite to the police station and he is always available, detained him in the police station beyond 24 hours and produced him at 9.00 p.m. for the first time before the Magistrate.
35. These acts of the police officials resulted in Mr. Rajendra Prasad, for discharging his professional duty entrusted to him as a practicing Advocate, and brought down his prestige in the society. We feel that he should be compensated properly. Accordingly, we direct the Section House Officers, T. Narasapuram and Chintalapudi Police Stations viz., T. Tata Rao and B. Rama-krishna, Sub-Inspectors of Police, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to Mr. Rajendra Prasad for interfering with his personal liberty in utter violation of his fundamental right i.e., right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. We direct the State to pay the amount to Mr. Rajendra Prasad in the first instance and recover the same from the above officers.
36. It is open to the Department or the Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officers named supra.