Shalini vs Chief Secretary on 13 January, 2011

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shalini vs Chief Secretary on 13 January, 2011

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EANGJKLORE ._

DATED THIS THE 13"" DAY 0? JANUARY, 2011

BEFORE

THE HOWBLE MR. JUSHCE ASi-§OK_B.g .?'"£F\ECE¥I{3'L§¥§E  '-

R.F.A.No.2i43/200? <REs?j_A'T..:1' *

BETWEEN:

Shaliraif

Wm B. Srénivas Naék,
Age 50 years,

We 423/70,

12"' Main Road,   'V

6"' Block, Rajajinaga_If,~._ 
Bangalore - S66 O1,G.._ 

AND:

  Appeilant

(83:  i3«sV%'}_g%<V"E~2;  'V;g'3.5'v{>cat@)

chiefsecﬁary,'  A'  _ 
Governmenbof 'Karnat;3ka,~~'
Vidhana Soudhza, 

    _____ 

 'H.dn'*ve TS§eCI*~:étva«Ey'-;.._
L'<"f.o*ew_.~2 m m E:-at <:f- K3 maﬁa ka,

M;S."'Bua:d;m;_. 
Barig..aio,_re' --. «-560 001.

  "i3'Q!}c@ G2-Enmissiener,
_ V~.LfB;ang-%aIore City,
_'  $§i:*:§.3E®.r"& -- 55$ §§3.,

  ...§<:--;§ Ravi Eﬁrakashf
 Same S:.sb-Ir*:5peC:mg,

KR Agrahara ?€}§EiZ8 Etatim;
fvfagaéé Raaé, ﬁarégaéara,



id

5. K. Seetiiaramashetty,
Cierk, Vijaya Bank,
Siddakatte Branch,
Bantwai Taiuk - 374 211.

Dakshiriakannada District. ...   .

(By Si: Zaheer Ahmed, Asia f0E'R*1 to  J '

Sri iV'§.3. Aiva, Adxsecate fer F«i~=S ~€'a"::<;_e'.:iit).g     

This Reguiar First Appeai is fiied U i:iﬁEi;"i"...K$éC1ii>G!'i  

CPC against the judgment and (jeC~r!":€@_'?f datiacii27'.6.i.2O€}T?V4_pas§sedi
in €}.S.No.2521/2000 an the file of i:-i3é~._)(VI Ad..cii"tigm._ai 'City"Civii

and Sessions Judge, Bangaiore (CCH--"'2)' -dismisSinAg' 'thegsuit for
recovery' of money/damages.'    --    

This Reguiar First Appeai VC;_Ji'n'inr;,i¥" (ﬁr:  Hearing this
day, the Court cieiiveredthe fe,iiowi'i1g':..A  "   ' ~- 

ihis appeai: is iii_iit'§:cté'ii' :?3:§rcuéi_i'ni:éi:"'i:i1eV§'ijiidgmerii: and decree,
dated 27.6,2:3o7_ 1i:_ié'Ssi'i.'3_€j'C1__ thi§'~C§_01Jr't of the xv: Addiitionai City

ciisii and sessi::ns"3a,idge,_[Ba-n§"a.i:5:~e"in €}.S.No.2.521/2000.

  fifie  <:>fiii*ie..£:a.s»e in brief are that the apaeiiant had

ietiieut.fiie.?;:;-rg'ii<iiVsvé:é to the respendent No.5. The respondent

io'iich;e:*ci aV'C;i'V'.'Vii:lf!"iV{..'.5'iVc"V:i§E"it with the respendent No.4 against the _$*a_pp'eE_iant, E i1.ei~...i:.iisbai1d and her two mins for the offences 5 §ﬁ)ii"I"iivS??Eiit§i€:'--.i'L§ﬂii'1EF Sections 143, 144, 146, 148, 448, 427, 323, .V:§§§i§;"A.?3K".s:'B}:V'3i"';""ai'%'é'A Seciiari 14% of WC. The aamgiaini wag regigtereé 33 Vff».Ci3i"m§"i*ti@i333j§:fii The iegpsriéerii $50.4 task the apgeiiarit and giiise §?§'iEi" assciigeé §€E'Sif3i'i§ iii the gisiiaé 386$ iiﬁafiiig i'=s§a.i'~'iE§ 3 7323. As Home of the material witnesses tamed up far giving the evidence befere the Court of the III Additionai, CMM, ﬁangahyre City, Magistrate by his judgment, dated 10.11.1998 acs:w_:i'tt4edv the apseiéant and the other accused persons 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The appeilant filed 0.sI.Nq.%2s211]20--:jQforuaeesht * 'V damages of Rs.25,000/--. The responr:i~ent:;'_"?v£.€§s;i._'to:°3"'ﬁ?%3eréi1.r_:

represented through Qistrict Gjcv-e..rnrh'eht VE?>l£_=',:2'a'AciAV~..he.r....__VVthe respondent Nos.4 and 5 had fi!Ve;7':A-..:t_r;~e»_» setzairhavteuvvvfiwritten statements. The written statentént h§/"-the>":-espondent No.4 is alscs en behalf of theA're.sponde'h.tf§\|es.,tl'_'thhxv3m:Censidering the rival pieadihgs, the4.?F§';si§aI:ﬁ(%urt:':§?Q'r:=ht3ia_tetiVsthe"féiiowing issues:

1. vVhe_the:'-- prtirvrrfes that the defendants in the }:§rg)Cess' V of their ofﬁciai duties have fléfsely V Vvi'mhs*.{eated her and her family & né" c7¥.«:,Vr3g;;i,;7350/94 and thus she suffered :éC(){':?"I'i?:}"'I'!:'%Vr'f1"E:?sI'.r')/, mentally and loss of reputation in

2. A plainhff is entitied to the suit claim as pIa..iht{ff hrayed for?

_ V ti"'"t: what order and decree?

3f 3:": hehaif cf the aeaeifaht, her husband, the ahgeiiants 'rsﬁgtegffréerat gamer st attsmey haid r was examines as "PW: marking 4% the documents at E><..P:t to P10. Nene of the respondent - defendants entered the witness box, nor any deeernents were marked fer them. Hewever, they were cehtent withvVC:?¥dsrs-- exeméeing the PW1.

4. On considering the pleadings, orai evidence pieced oh its recerd, the Trief Ceuift 4'a»n'sy'v'ered\._the1rf contentious issues against the appellant and¥<:£_ismésse'ti%'

5. Sri Ashok S. Mensinkai, the"'i.f,eerjned'"coVtrnsefV}fer the appeiiant submits that the Trie.3_z§3ou;?_t "e..oti'fi=a_med the groper issues He submits that themehspoeVde.nt".d§'\£.oVsfi:'to 4 and the 'respondent Ne__.S According to him, the Triai Court has"-eirred "by." the suit as against the respVohdeh.t_§tJo.S afso," the suit is fiied without cornpfying witi'a._the.;fhentieter§2«--..'requirements contained in Section 170 of the Kei'm_e'taV3<Aa"'?'d_Ev_i:;e'V.i'{3;Ct, 1963 ('the said Act' for short; V -- 6. s'ut.)n":'E'ts that there is no nexus between what the

4.r:es';d€;rr§d'er'tt4_ Nee has dene and what he was required to tie in Thetetere; there is he QI'E**¥'&C§U§E'€F}'}Ei"'iTZ fer obtaining the V ..__se:~:.:§ti'tirt ef the ﬁeeemrheet unde r §et:tiee we ef the said eeti see;

17'. Sri Nieesihkei comes down heavity en the condu-r:_t of the respeneeht No.4 police efficer. ti' the respondent P3'e:;:€:f"Lhtad.4 eniy appeared befere the Magistrate; thinge weuid-.f:he*;.e:VV' "

different. He aise takes exceptéon to the.ree»;:send.ent_VV"hie{I.ei- it the eppeiient in a peiice jeep, as if she or grave offence. He eubmits that the .reegen:de--h't"'N<jjs.4 and 3 have done is tantamount to mefi-cifous'proseeutvEe.n..o:hiy.

8. Sr; Zeheer Ahmed, th.ev'i'iear.h_ec§i A--'ti~d.itie;j.a'f Government Advocate appearing re;3Sp<:on'd;eh't 4 submits that, en receiet of the "'t:he"gvreSpor*:dent No.5; the respondent He submits that the resporrdent N<xj--..4"-has' any Eliegafity either in registering the corrI'pE_aIht..'--erA'*inV"arrestEng the aepefiant and the other'--accuee'd:,."persens. 'VéFI'e"é;ubmEts that the respondent No.4 had n'e__hoi:_it:e to give the evidence in the crtminat 'tease.

* E.-h_ave"brewsed through the L.C.Rs. The suit eeuid not "thee egainet the reseeeeeht Nee': te 4 witheet .i_ebte'_ihs'r'rg}ithe prior S3E?C.EEQE"E ef the Geazetemerzt. The same ie the t4"'~.t»_%tr~eh'e§eter3s reeeirement gereerjrébee by Seetéeri Em ef the eeée (3 Act. The respondent N031 to «it are bound ta succeed an a technicaiétya

10. Hewever, it is for the higher formatien of t:hej'=P.u{>j'%--i_cie,VA Department ta Eook into certain aspects of the matte_f;;--- * understand, though not justify, a ;3rEvate_par.ty net.V'be'it€g» with the witness stzmmens, but the sf'atea?cae~rit :t'é1ai:.:§é3 'V?e_E'%cue7[--:

Officer coutd not be served with thekﬁtness As-LImm_oi"..s ta':':eat*':be accepted at alt.

11. It is again for the~ti3igf2e:f{--.Vftfﬁttatitm_ of the Poiéce Separtment to bringﬁheir with the Cr*,P.C, 1-"Joiice*.?_~"ia:<tuaiVVa'Vt*:ti-.,thee At;)e><..Co"urt's judgments, as to how and under what ctir_curtf1st'a_rtces»' accused are to be arrested.

12. jtae %40n'biVe"S:§preArne Courtis judgment in the case of 3oG,r_m>j:s.rz;_ tt_timA§i'-~--v__. snvre or: 11.9. Arm omens reported Am" :a§94 of great guidance in the matter. Para %'24Vo;'j the g--u«cig:'é;tent reads ae foiiowsz = ''.25& .. .f.....Ne arrest can be made becauge it is fawftzf _ f;3r:f§:e.A.--?eiice Qfficer far: dc 5:0. we emefence 9? {ﬁe geasyer ' teerreet in me thfng. The jtzetificatiert fer the exerciee of E523 :f,?:f,!§é'€ anemer. fee ..5'eé;'ce Sfficer .e"?'Et1i§i" be aeie Se ' jsiiS€1'f}»' the §f.F'E$f eeart free: his ,ee:t.»«.xer EQ tife 5:}: wrest

54. in:

and o'etentlon in ,oollce lo::l<--z..i,o of a person can cause i'n<:5.=l::z..rl3ble harm to the reputation and seliiesteem of a.--._ person. No arrest can be made in a routine mariner one mere allegation of <:ommission of an offence made agem?;'t~V. , A' 5 person. It would be omdent for 5 Police Ofﬁcer'-.'il'} "ll interest of protection of the constitagtioiqai r;g"hi~s*- i V <:iti'zen end perhaps in file own interest>_tl'i5i.t"'oo':el2ies~:'».,,t should be made without 5 reasonable ee.tieIf3otionireeolaml it E after some investigation as to tfée"'genui'oenes:5 _el:o'oor"ie...

rides of e complwnt and 5 reasonai£;§le_V'belief both "to the persons com,olicity and ever? sees! tofthuee-rieeol to"effec:t arrest. Denying a persontjof _a serious matter. The recommendetifoi§$i..oi'the Fo'i'ioe:(;emmi'3sion merely reflect Constitutiolial'«.Voohjcoif7'i't;§nts of the furidemente! rigtivté lioerz:"y eiro' freeciiom. ﬁa person is"/tot.llej55le'v'i*oi'srr'ést*.o?ere'lyi~o:n the sus,olc:lon of complicity in envVVof;fe:h_:4ei.i » 'me:-e__i:7zi?si' be some reasonable justii'lcatl'oiri in m..=.=_'o,éil%n._fo»i. the officer effecting the arrest that etoicﬁ arrest isfzecessary and jostiﬁ'ed. Except in herrijoéisi..offenoes,_en awrest must be avoioed if e i5'olic:e 3 V' 'O.fﬂ'ce.rCissa:;:.es"i--rgoti"oe toﬁerson to attend the sta tion house "'__ario'i".oVt to l'eati¢5"'5ta tion without permisslori would do. "' 2 :£3.A it ieV__§3eni'e'fiAciaE to refer to the Apex: Court's judgment in " of So.§3 MITTAL V. GOVERNMENT OF KARNMAKA V £52558) 3 SCC ".?§3. The reievarzt oeregraehe of the eaéﬁ' ;;?w.s,r.:i_:;';rreeet are exteaeted heteineeiow: 8

'E42. In pare :3 of the same ji_lC}'gi?'?Ei"?i' this Court has also referred to the Third Reeert of the National Police Cemmissien which stated that by and large nearly 60% cf the arrests in the country were unnecessary or unjustiﬂed. Also, 43.2% of the expenditure in jeils was over such eriseners only who need net have been arrested at ell.

4.2. Despite this categorical judgment of the_$.z;eren?e.:"

Court it appears that the police is net :.;«itAal'i' «.'n7_p"ien7enhting it. What invariable happens is that wh'ene*~;f'er'en'ii:'?IR~ of ex cognizable offence is lodged thepolice iin{t7'edietelyirg;o'es to errest the accused person' This"-iisaelear vielatieijfof the' aforesaid judgment of the Supren7Ve_.Cl'et:rt;'

43. t may be noted thet _See't*§oh:;?( .defines a cogni2etjle%'offen?.fe eeﬂgli e'fiehee inhvﬁihich a police officer may arrest 'witiaoet':V;¢<eriaVn'ts;s.__ﬁimilarly Section 41 CrPC' states that Looiiice"efficiei"niayéairrest a person involved in a Cognizable otfenee,..'- The Use of the word "may" shows "€f?c?fv_'tEi~3'.3t3c3li;Cc3 Vofficer"is,__n_et~ bound to arrest even in e Case efet _¢e§:n}zebl'e'effenee. When he should arrest and when notish :*i'e,ri'fiee' ir:i._Juo.ginder Kumer case. «<i'a~'i.'._. Age.'n'.in Section 15?{1) CrPC' it is mentioned that "we ,ooiit:e e;ffic:er shall investigate e case relating to e "v.'n»{:e"g:*:i2;et:ies effence, and if necessary take measures for h' . the 'errest ef the C§§:?'§i"?{j€f', 'this egeiti makes it eiear that "V--..wari?°est is net e must in every case of e eegznizehle " * . _ efienee. ""

9

14. The Horﬂbie Supreme Court has expressed its coneédered View in the C8158 Of SIDDHARAM SATLIP§GA§?PA MHETRE v. STATE or MAHARASHTRA Am: o1I.r';eRs reported in (2011) 1. SCC 694 as foiiows:

"86. According to the Report of the iVation'e'i" ' Commission, when the pewer of" arrest; is §f{;»S§i"}{ ebueeof and cieerly vioiates the personai ii'bert}}'.ofi peo;>_ie,'~ as.' enshrined tinder Article 21 of the 'C,onsti;te%ti'o,*:{ tiia'eh}jL'i':.e¢ courts need to take serious notice of..it.t.'. " ~

90. A great fgnOi?'?i'fi}{,.."z'}Uf7~ii'fi£1.ff(5f1'.__c3'.fi:{5'.'C?'fS§}!'£3C€ is attached to the arrest, Arreet ieatis :5-.;<%:ar§yi_ serious consequences not or;/y for"ti'ie'eV'ccL}se:c:'._but f<;2i*'~'ttie entire femiiy and at foij4'.':f:e_e.ntiifex_co,?f2'im3nity, Most peopie do nofi'r.-rﬁzke .cii5.tinctio.nVVZ§etween arrest at a ,ore--Convi'c_tio.'1 stage ,;'3OSf:'C?.i}'i:i'.{i'CffOi7 stage. 113, _Arre§:= sfzociiii be._the'tViast opti'on and it should be _ reetrictieef tie those' =excfept."onei cases where arresting the ecciised i'sﬂ"nfi;:i=:i'ati've in the facts and circumstances of that c¢:e;;i=.{;'.~..,_.; A' 2:15. i?ereo.:/iei liberty ie as very precious fundamental Aifigivir c3'i2€j!"5{' ehould be curtailed only when it becomes Vizfmzeeretive' eeeerding to the peculiar facts and T '::f;%;'a:e*;.r5teneee of the ceee, "

it is beiefui te refer te the Heeeie Sﬁeereree Ceerte 'u"'..%t_"é-.e«:'ie%oo in the sage ef !v'£.C.A.BRA%iA£vi AME MQQTHER ex 10 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 2 SCC 649. The reievant portion of this judgment ie reptodtgtted hereinbeéowz 14', in appropriate cases, after some investfgetiongi K ' the investigating officer may make up his mien?» whether it is necessary to arrest the eafuseza' ;:}er5on.f"v,'4%_t V that stage the court has no rare to pfajzé, the ;oo_i:zi'/er? is eﬁscret/'onery, 5 police ofﬁ'cer.e'r'e_ not etvveys brj.u}7d to arrest an accused even if the afle'g/:§.t}'en agemet 'hhfn ' having Committed a cognizable offenuee.._Sr'nce en"at{fest7is in the nature of an enCroe"¢Ahme--§ht "the_T'i'£herty of the subject and does affect the reglauhtehhon eno'.eVtet;{s of the citizen, the gaoweﬂhes m"'be~ V:?;jec,?tfo:u.s/y'VV.e;fe%*efsed. It depends inter eiie {gees n:€:tore'_'ef théé 'off'ence aiieged and .v etehhhveccused of having committed the cogI:t'§:ao'hie_offen:je.h Ohviousfy, the power has to be exerc::'sed"withLratihon end circumspection. "

V' "'15. "-T'hei..,'ap$e$!ant'eVVéiihmission that the Trial Court has not framed t:3_eV'pr_o_"p.erv does not commend itseif to me. It was V7_fo'peh to the appeE'l:aht's side to make the necessary application framih.g__hof the eciditiooai iseues or for the modification of ?.. 'the-§Txs§e;1ee_eéreaey eeet. Neneizheiess, there is some substance in i:he.wVg»r£_eveeee of §£'E Meeeéhkai that no ieeaze whatsoever is Vhhtffhtehréee in reeeeet ef the teeeeeeet Netﬁ. "me framing of the 7? § 351 first issue, which is extrecteé hereinahove is eniy regarding the respondent Nes.1 te 4. No issue whatsoever is fren"re'i;i.';".es to whether the plaintiff (appeiiant herein) proves:i~«~t--h'eVt.__'__the:"

respondent No.3 hes resorted to meiicious prose§f_o»tio'n.:§' ._£-;.<i;' the issue itself is not framed, therelis _nej;d'i_s(§tissie--n;..ie_'noTf reasoning on the aiiegations lev'ei.i'e.(_:i ageinst the»r'eVsno'nci'_en'tt No.5.

17. For the aforesaid rea'soVrisf',V'iifVivdistrfgggthis apnea! in part and aiiow it in d%srnis'sai 'of suit as against the respondent hiss;1"vi:of-véiiiisﬁr:o_:n'firrr2ed. The dismissai of the suit as against the_ViireseonVdeht.:_"Ne.S is set aside. The matter is vreirnand,_eti. tioithue Tria'E«.Co.urt for fresh enquiry in accordance with'--.£awV"ageivn'st .._rest)ondent No.5. The confirmation of disrréissei oi' trheisuit as against the respondent Nest t0 4 _..iSi.s;J'b.jeCt te~.th'e observations made in earagraph i\3os.1C) and direction to the respendent Nest: to 4 to act in eiehﬁiianee with the irforﬁbie Supreme Court's decisions te '-tfrrshiseiii referenees are reads in seregreeh ?§{}'?I§ift2 ts 15 I2 hereinabove. The cyfﬁce is directed E6 endorse a copy of this order to the Director Generai of Pofice.

18. Ne arder as tax Costs.

jﬁ 5 MD

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court