Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shanthamma W/O Sri Arunachalam vs Sub-Inspector Of Police, Malur Police ... on 23 August, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(3)KARLJ330, 2007 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 39 (KAR.) = 2006 (6) AIR KAR R 64, 2007 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 514 (KAR.) = 2006 (6) AIR KAR R 64, 2006 (6) AIR KAR R 64, (2007) 3 KANT LJ 330
Bench: R. Gururajan, N. Ananda
ORDER
1. This case is to be an eye opener to the Police Department in the matter of conducting proceedings in the highest Court of the State. One Smt. Shanthamma moved this Court by way of a habeaus corpus petition on 28.6.2006 in W.P.No. 62/2006(HC). According to her, the Sub Inspector of Police, Indira Nagar arrested the petitioner's son on 23.6.2006 at around 12.45 in the mid-night, while he was sleeping in the petitioner's house. On 24.6.2006, she went to Malur Police Station and made enquiries with regard to the whereabouts of her son. She was told that her son was not arrested. Thereafter, after search and enquiry, she came to know that her son is in the custody of Indira Nagar Police Station on 28.6.2006. Immediately, she moved this Habeaus Corpus petition in this Court. This Court noticed the submission of Sri. Manjunath, learned Counsel that the detenue is in Indira Nagar Police Station, according to his instructions and that the Police are not relieving the detenue on the ground that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is to be made over to the Police. After noticing the seriousness of payment to the Police for release of the detenue, we thought it fit to issue notice and get affidavits in the light of the submission made by Sri. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. Matter was listed on 29.6.2006. On the said day, Sri. Murugesh Babu was produced before us by the Inspector of Police by name Sri. V.P.M. Swamy and Sub Inspector of Police for Crime Sri. Baig of Indira Nagar Police Station. We made enquiries with Sri. Murugesh Babu with regard to the statement made in Court on 28.6.2006. He categorically stated reluctantly in the beginning that he was taken into custody on the mid-night of 2 3.6.2006 by a six police officials of Indira Nagar Police Station. According to the submissions, he seems to be involved in a theft case. Thereafter, we notice that he was not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 24 hours in terms of the law governing such detention. No explanation was forthcoming by the police in this regard. In these circumstances, we thought it fit to get the affidavits from the police officers and hence, the matter was adjourned to 4.7.2006 in terms of the order passed on 29.6.2006. Matter was adjourned.
3. On 4.7.2006, affidavits were filed and documents were produced. After noticing the discrepancies in the Station House Diary and other documents with regard to detention in terms of the affidavit, we thought it fit to direct the materials to be kept in the safe custody of the Registrar Vigilance. Matter was again listed on 10.7.2006, in the matter of further hearing in the light of the affidavits filed before us. After noticing the discrepancies and after noticing the affidavits filed by the police officials, we thought that the matter requires a further investigation to find out the truth in the matter. In these circumstances, we thought it fit to direct the Registrar Vigilance of this Court to submit a report, after hearing the concerned police officials with regard to the affidavits filed in this Court and with regard to the Station House Diary and Case Diary in terms of the order dated 10.7.2006. We directed the Registrar Vigilance to submit a report in this regard. Thereafter, the matter was clarified with regard to further materials in terms of an order dated 19.7.2006.
4. The Registrar Vigilance has placed before us his report dated 9.8.2006. On 11.8.2006, matter was listed before another Bench and the Bench directed the office to provide the Xerox copy of the report to the State Public Prosecutor for filing objections, if any. No objections are filed. Matter is listed today.
5. We have heard Sri. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Dore Raju, learned State Public Prosecutor. Sri. Manjunath, learned Counsel says that his client has been released and he is now attending to his work without any police interference.
6. Sri. S. Dore Raju, learned State Public Prosecutor says that the Inspector of Police is a honest officer and that he has no hands in the case on hand. He says that this Court has to take a lenient view in the matter. In the normal circumstances, we would not have taken this case very seriously as pleaded by the State Public Prosecutor. But what troubled us is the manner in which the police officials have taken the proceedings in terms of the report submitted by the Registrar Vigilance. A reading of the report of the Registrar Vigilance would show that the Sub Inspector of Police of Indira Nagar Police Station and two others seem to have created a false document and false affidavit. After noticing the enquiry report in the case on hand, we are highly disturbed to see the creation of records by the police in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We deem it proper to observe that Court proceedings are sacred in nature. Courts go by the submissions made by the public officers in particular, the Police officers for the purpose of deciding the matter in terms of the pleadings and in accordance with law. If the police officers take the Court proceedings in a light manner and if police officials file false affidavit, the Court cannot shut its eyes without any further action. It may not be out of place to mention that Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the heart of the Constitution of India. Liberty is sacred in democracy. Liberty has to be respected by all, Including the Police. Therefore, we deem it proper to come to the rescue of the lady mother of the detenu in the case on hand in the larger interest of rendering justice to her, as otherwise, we would be falling in our duty to protect a poor lady. A reading of the order dated 29.6.2006 would show that the three officials of the Indira Nagar Police Station have committed an act of contempt, prima facie. We do not want to proceed in that regard, particularly in the light of the release of the detenu in terms of the material already available on record. But at the same time, we deem it proper to see that appropriate action is taken against the erring Police officers so that they may not repeat the same in any other forum in the interest of justice. Moreover, this case must be an eye opener to all the police officials of the State in the matter. They should take the Court proceedings very seriously since the Court decides the matter in the light of the material placed by the Police officers to maintain purity in Police administration and to maintain purity in justice delivery system. In the interest of justice, we deem it proper to direct the Registrar General to file an appropriate criminal complaint in a competent Court of law against Sri. Zahoor Ali Baig, Sub-Inspector, Sri. Mallegowda, PC and Sri. Baanaik, PC for filing false affidavit in a Court of law. Office is to make available all the papers to the Registrar General to comply with this order.
7. We also deem it proper to direct the Commissioner of Police to get hold of the entire records including the reports and the affidavit filed in this Court and hold appropriate enquiry in accordance with law against Sri. Zahoor Ali Baig, Sub-Inspector, Sri. Mallegowda, PC and Sri. Balanaik, PC for creating false records thereby violating their duty in a manner known to law and in accordance with law departmentally. Further liberty is reserved to the Commissioner of Police to proceed against any other police officers, if they are involved directly or indirectly, departmentally in accordance with law.
8. It is seen that in terms of the report of the Registrar Vigilance, the detenue was kept under illegal detention. As we mentioned earlier, Article 21 is sacred. Article 21 is to be respected. In these circumstances, we deem it proper to direct the State of Karnataka to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the petitioner within two weeks from today. Liberty is however reserved to the State to recover from the concerned police officials, if they have any right to do so, in terms of the law governing compensation. We also deem it proper to direct the office to sent a copy of this order to the Home Secretary, Director General of Police, Karnataka and the Commissioner of Police for their information and for further remedical action in future cases.
9. Ordered accordingly. A carbon copy of this order be made available to the learned State Public Prosecutor. The police in the course of hearing have placed before us certain materials including Station House Diary and Case Diary. In the light of this order, we deem it proper to direct the office not to release these documents to the Police and the Registrar General is to take hold of these documents and file the same before appropriate Judicial Forum along with this order.