Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 August, 2015
WP-6074-2009
(ANAND AGRAWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
10-08-2015
This petition was originally filed on 19.6.2009 and
when it was filed, at that point of time, the following
reliefs were claimed by the petitioner:
i. Direct the respondent No.1 & 2 to initiate a
impartial enquiry against the role played by the Respondent No.4 to 7 from such an investigating agency as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court with its report to the Hon'ble Court every week, including that of hatching of a conspiracy against the petitioner and his family, illegal detention for 4 days in Central Jail, Katni to enable the Respondent No.8 to 12 to destroy the property of the petitioner, his deceased mother & father by dispossessing and misappropriating the movable and immovable property, manipulating the Government Records, illegal confinement of petitioner's 80 year old bed ridden father, forging the documents, manipulating the so called submission, affidavits and power of attorney's by the petitioner's father and were the huge amount received from the sale of various properties, the amount which was in the bank accounts the petitioner's father, the huge amount of income tax refunds received by the petitioner's father and the other misappropriation was routed to.
ii. To direct them book these respondents by initiating disciplinary inquiry against them.
(iii) To direct to restore the possession of the petitioner including movable, immovable assets, household articles, cash, jewellery etc.
(iv) To direct the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 to make such arrangements to get released the 80 year ailing, bed ridden father of the petitioner from the illegal confinement by the Respondent No.8 to 12, admit in a private hospital in Jabalpur for his best possible treatment and take the action on the petition submitted by the eldest sister of the petitioner, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Bill 2007 on date 5.1.2008.
(v) To grant compensation of Rs.50.00 lakhs to the petitioner for his illegal arrest, detention in Central Jail, Katni and torture inflicted upon him and his family in last six years.
(vi) And also be pleased to issue any other writ/order/direction fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. As far as relief Nos.7(iv) and the interim relief are concerned, the same has been deleted. Now, the petitioner only wants an inquiry into the manner as to how the respondent Nos.4 to 7 have kept him under custody, illegally detained him for four days in the Central Jail, Katni and wants Rs.50 lakhs as compensation for the aforesaid illegal act.
3. The petition is pending since 2009 and on 12.11.2014, it was listed for final hearing, a Division Bench of this Court has held that since the relief of Habeas Corpus has been deleted, now only the question of payment of compensation is required and the counsel took adjournment to argue on that question. Accordingly, the case was adjourned on 12.11.2014. Then the case was listed on 23.4.2015 for final hearing before a Coordinate Bench of this Court and none appeared on behalf of petitioner on that date. This Court took note of all these facts and indicated that ordinarily in such a situation, the petition would have been dismissed for want of prosecution. However, considering the fact that the litigant should not suffer on the mistake of the Advocate and by way of last indulgence, the matter was deferred for final hearing and thereafter today it is listed for final hearing and the same is taken up for final hearing.
4. From the material available on record and on the basis of the submissions made by the counsel for parties, it is seen that the petitioner and respondent Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 are related to each other. According to petitioner's own showing respondent Nos.8 & 9 are his real elder brothers, respondent No.10 is his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and respondent Nos.11 and 12 are nephews of the petitioner and all are residents of Agrawal Bhavan, House No.43, Vallabh Das Agrawal Ward, District Katni. It is also found that after death of the mother of the petitioner and the respondent Nos.8 & 9, disputes commenced in the family with regard to the family property and the petitioner and the respondent Nos.8 to 12 have been fighting for the property and allegations and counter allegations have been made and complaint lodged by the petitioner and the private respondents. From Para 5.4 onwards of the writ petition, it is indicated as to how and in what manner the respondent Nos.8 to 12 have illegally entered into the house of the petitioner where his wife and children were staying, forcefully took possession of the property of the petitioner and threatened the petitioner and his family. The petitioner has lodged a complaint against the respondent Nos.8 to 12 before the Superintendent of Police, Katni, but no action has been taken.
5. On the contrary, respondent Nos.8 to 12 have also filed counter case against the petitioner with regard to property and say that they have suffered harassment on the hands of the petitioner.
6. It is a case of the petitioner that with a view to teach the petitioner a lesson, respondent Nos.8 to 12 hatched a conspiracy with the officials i.e. respondent Nos.4 to 7 and illegally kept the petitioner in custody under Section 151 Cr.P.C. read with the provisions of various other preventive measures available, it is alleged that petitioner was illegally detained for a period of four days in the Central Jail, Katni and he was not released despite the fact that the Advocate for the petitioner was willing to furnish bail bonds. By bringing on record the proceedings herein under Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. and the detention under Section 151 of Cr.P.C., it is tried to be indicated that the petitioner was illegally detained at the instance of respondent Nos.8 to 12 by illegal methods adopted by the officials i.e. respondent Nos.4 to 7. Accordingly, on this ground, petitioner seeks compensation.
7. On the other hand, respondent Nos.1 to 3, 4, 5 & 6, and 7 have filed detailed reply and they have brought on record various documents to show that because of family dispute, a case was registered under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and orders were passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and as preventive measure, petitioner was taken into custody, detained in the jail and subsequently released. The petitioner was detained for four days and released thereafter. Respondents, particularly, 4, 5, 6 & 7 have denied the personal allegations levelled against them. There is no concrete evidence to establish the fact that as to what type of conspiracy has been hatched between the official respondent Nos.4 to 7 with the private respondents in detaining the petitioner for four days. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 have no personal interest involved in the case and in accordance with the law and taking note of the law and order situation created in the area in question, preventive action was taken. Therefore, the impugned action cannot be said to be illegal.
8. Shri Piyush Jain, learned P.L. for the respondents/State submits that the respondent Nos.4 to 7 are the Government Officials and they have only discharged their statutory duties as per the requirement of law and there is no personal interest involved in this case. The impugned action cannot be said to be illegal and no compensation can be granted to the petitioner at any point of time. To support his contention, he draws attention of this Court to the order Annexure-R/1, which is a copy of the Roznamcha and the order Annexure-R/2 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which are annexed with the return filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the parties and have gone through the materials available on record. Except for making vague allegations of conspiracy hatched by the Government Officials with the private respondent Nos.8 to 12 for illegal detention of the petitioner for four days, nothing is brought on record to indicate as to how and in what manner the so called conspiracy has been executed against the petitioner. On the contrary, the material available on record and as per the petitioner's own showing that it is clear the petitioner and respondent Nos.8 & 9 are real brothers. The respondent No.9 is sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and respondent Nos.11 & 12 are nephews of the petitioner. It is apparent that a family dispute has risen between the parties after the death of petitioner and respondent Nos.8 & 9's mother and in connection with the family dispute, certain proceedings were initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.. The records indicated that in the year 2009, when this petition was filed, the dispute was pending before the Sessions Court, Katni. Records also indicate that due to family dispute over the property between the petitioner and the private respondents, certain law and order situations were created in the area, due to which, the Authorities took preventive steps under Sections 145 & 146 of Cr.P.C. and detained the petitioner and took action against all concerned under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. Records indicate that with regard to property in question, civil dispute was pending before the Civil Court, Katni and in Para 5.13 of the writ petition, the petitioner himself admits that a Civil Suit No.115- A/2006 is pending before the Court of Second Civil Judge-I, Katni. That being the position, it is the case where the petitioner and his brothers, namely, respondent Nos.8 & 9 and their relatives are involved in a family civil dispute with regard to property, in connection with this some law and order situation was created for which preventive action was taken by the Authorities. For claiming compensation, petitioner has to demonstrate with cogent evidence as to how and in what matter his detention under Section 151 Cr.P.C. can be termed as illegal and how he justifies or demonstrates before this Court the manner in which conspiracy has been hatched by the official respondents with the private respondent Nos.8 to 12. Except for making some vague allegations of illegal detention for four days, no concrete evidence or material has been adduced by the petitioner to help this Court to come to a definite conclusion that the detention of the petitioner is illegal, therefore, he is entitled for compensation. There are serious disputes of facts involved in this case which warrants enquiry and cannot be adjudicated on the basis of affidavit contrary to the nature filled by the parties. Taking note of all the circumstances, we find that this is a fit case where exercise of power under the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for. It is a serious dispute on facts and the allegations of conspiracy alleged against the official respondents have not been established by the petitioner, accordingly in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Petitioner may take recourse to such remedy that may be available to him where inquiry on fact can be held and claim of the petitioner considered.
10. Accordingly, finding no ground, this petition is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE