Karnataka High Court
Sayed Jamir Hussain vs State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2013
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION No.31497/2008 (GM-POLICE)
AND WRIT PETITION Nos.60239-60242/2009
BETWEEN:
1. Sayed Jamir Hussain,
S/o Sayed Shabbir Hussain,
Aged 32,
Occ: Self employed,
R/o Teggina Kera Oni,
Jawahar Road, Koppal.
2. Sayed Mehamood Hussain,
S/o Sayed Shabbir Hussain,
Aged 33,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Teggina Kera Oni,
Jawahar Road, Koppal.
3. Sayed Habib Hussain,
S/o Sayed Shabbir Hussain,
Aged 25,
Occ: Contractor,
R/o Teggina Kera Oni,
Jawahar Road, Koppal.
4. Sayed Hayat Peer Hussain,
S/o Sayed Shabbir Hussain,
Aged 22,
Occ: Contractor,
R/o Teggina Kera Oni,
Jawahar Road, Koppal.
2
5. Sayed Hameed Hussain,
S/o Sayed Shabbir Hussain,
Aged 28,
Occ: Student,
R/o Teggina Kera Oni,
Jawahar Road, Koppal. ... Petitioners
(By Sri Phirangi for Sri Y.Lakshmikant Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Koppal District, Koppal.
3. M.N.Bagalkot,
P.S.I. of Town Police Station,
Koppal.
(Presently serving as P.S.I,
Koppal Rural Police Station, Koppal).
4. Sri Chikkareddy,
P.I. of Town Police Station,
Koppal.
(Presently serving as P.I.
Hescom, Haveri). ... Respondents
(By Sri K.S.Patil, HCGP for R-1 and R-2,
Sri K.L.Patil, Advocate for R-3 and R-4)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to award compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- each for the injustice and suffering at the hands of
the respondents and further R-3 and 4 be punished in
accordance with law and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' group this day, the Court made the following:
3
ORDER
The petitioners' grievance is that on account of scuffle between the petitioners and their cousin, the petitioners were handcuffed and taken to the Court. The petitioners are seeking the damage of `1,00,000/- for the suffering they have undergone at the hands of the respondents.
2. Sri K.S.Patil, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioners assaulted the Constable and damaged the properties in the police station. That is why they had to be handcuffed and taken to the Court. He submits that the complaint filed by the petitioners before the State Human Rights Commission is already dismissed. He submits that, as the petitioners and their opposite parties had indulged in the violence in the police station, the police, apprehending that the things may go out of their hands, had no other option than handcuffing them when they were taking them to the Court.
3. Sri K.L.Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the petitioners assaulted the Police Constable right in the police station and obstructed the police from discharging their official duties.
4
4. Sri Phirangi, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the criminal cases registered against the petitioners have ended up in their acquittal. As the petitioners' human rights are violated, as their reputation in the eyes of the society is lowered on account of their being handcuffed, they are entitled to the damages.
5. Whether the handcuffing was justified or not depends on the situation in the police station. Whether the petitioners created violence, on the basis of which the police had to handcuff them, etc. all call for the factual determination. Whether the petitioners have indeed created the violence of such a magnitude that called for handcuffing cannot be decided based on the assertions and denials in the affidavits. As this matter involves serious disputed questions of facts, I deem it just to reserve the liberty to the petitioners to avail of the remedy of filing the suit for damages.
6. Yet another reason for my not awarding the damages is that the State Human Rights Commission itself has turned down the petitioners' request. As the matter calls for an elaborate enquiry in the suit proceedings, I decline to accede to the 5 prayers in the writ petition. It is made clear that no opinion whatsoever is expressed on the merits of the claims of the petitioners.
7. These petitions are dismissed but subject to the liberties reserved and the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD