HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (D.B.) RAJESH KUMAR SINGH V/S STATE OF U P AND OTHERS Date of Decision: 28 June 2012 Citation: 2012 LawSuit(All) 1541 ________________________________________ Honble Judges: Ravindra Singh, Anurag Kumar Appeal Type: Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition Appeal No: 7937 of 2012 Subject: Constitution Acts Referred: Constitution Of India Art 22(1), Art 21 Final Decision: Petition disposed ________________________________________ Judgement Text:- [1] Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, in person and Sri R.K.Singh, learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and respondent No. 6 Indrajeet Chaturvedi, SHO, Police Station Kotwali (Sadar) District Allahabad. [2] This petition has been filed by Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate with the prayers to : 1.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to ensure the rule of law in the State of Uttar Pradesh by taking appropriate action against the respondent No. 6 for causing mental agony to the petitioner and for violating the direction of the Honble Apex Court as propounded in D.K.Basus case. 2.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to ensure the rule of law in the State of Uttar Pradesh by installing sufficient scientific equipments like video recording of the affairs in the campus of various Police Stations at the time of entry of any person arrested and also at the time of interrogation of arrested person and lastly at the time of challan of arrested person. 3.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.6 to ensure the display about the rights available to a person being arrested as declared in D.K.Basus case. 4.Issue any other writ, order direction in favour of the petitioner which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.Award the cost of the petition throughout to the petitioner. [3] The facts, in brief, of this case are that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate of this Court bearing Registration No. U.P.B.C. 6848/1999 and he is enrolled as Member of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad. On 18.6.2012, at the request of Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava Advocate the petitioner went to police station Kotwali Allahabad along with Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava , Ram Kirti Singh and Sri Sunil Kumar Advocates at about 11.30 A.M. in respect of detention of Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, brother in law of Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava Advocate and made an inquiry about his detention, it was replied by lady Police Sub Inspector that a complaint has been made by wife of Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, the younger brother of Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava that Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava has taken away her minor boy, it was also replied by lady Police Sub Inspector that no case was registered against Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava. After hearing such allegation made by one Smt. Kajal claiming to be the wife of Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, the petitioner was suprised because Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, the younger brother of Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava was not married and Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava was out of station for the last 2 days in usual course of his business because he was working as Dental Technician along with one Dentist Dr. Rajendra Prasad Seth, after hearing such allegation Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava became apprehended about any unpleasant happening including danger to life of his younger brother Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, thereafter the inquiry was made about Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, his brother Ashok Kumar Srivastava came to the conclusion that he was not traceable and his Cell Phone was switched off, thereafter the suggestion was made to Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava by the petitioner and his three advocates friends for lodging a missing report at the police station concerned, the petitioner asked Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava Advocate to leave the Police Station but one lady Police Sub Inspector did not permit the petitioner to leave the police station by saying that Officer-in-Charge of Police Station had gone to interrogate, wait for his arrival she was requested by the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava that they will come back to the police station after lodging the missing report at the Police Station Attarsuiya, Allahabad, thereafter the petitioner and his advocate friends went to the Police Station, Attarsuiya, where a missing report was prepared by Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava and it was handed over to the Head Constable for registering the same but it was not registered due to a telephonic message was given by SHO Kotwali, Allahabad. The petitioner and others were requested to wait for arrival of Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station Attarsuiya, in the meantime at about 2.00 P.M. in a police jeep one person not in a police uniform along with two constables came to the police Station Attarsuiya who took Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava in the custody without disclosing any reason. The petitioner and his Advocate friends were scolded by them , in reply to several legal querries, a person who was not in police uniform claimed to be SHO , Police Station Kotwali, Allahabad, thereafter the petitioner along with Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava was brought to the police station Kotwali in police jeep. Simultaneously, three advocate friends of the petitioner also came to the police station Kotwali, after intervention of three Advocate friends , the petitioner was released from the police custody and all the four advocates were compelled to leave the premises of police station Kotwali Allahabad. The petitioner reminded the SHO Kotwali about the mandate of Honble Supreme Court as propounded in case of D.K.Basu Vs. State of Bengal, State of U.P., decided on 18.12.1996, then respondent no. 6 Sri Indrajeet Chaturvedi, SHO, Kotwali in a shame ful manner expressed disregard about mandate issued in above case by the Honble Supreme Court , even it was not displayed any where in the police station. The petitioner and his friends were insulted by SHO Kotwali but they were helpless, they came to the High Court Allahabad and moved an application before the Registrar General of High Court Allahabad on 18.6.2012. The petitioner and other 3 Advocate friends felt mental agony and stress due to misbehaviour of respondent no. 6. The respondent no. 6 was exercising his power illegally and arbitrarily by making flagrant violation of direction issued by Honble the Supreme Court in D.K.Basus case. The respondent no.6, who was not in police uniform made arrest without disclosing any reason for which he was under obligation to disclose . The petitioner and his friends were forcibly taken into custody, thereafter they were asked to leave the premises of police station, subsequently, the brother in law of Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava Advocate who was released at about 5.30 P.M. for taking his meal was again taken to custody by respondent no. 6 without disclosing any reason. The petitioner was taken into custody forcibly , he was illegally detained for half an hour without any reason, such act done by respondent No.6 was illegal and in arbitrary exercise of powers. The petitioner is suffering from mental agony, thereafter this writ petition has been filed for issuing certain direction so that such type of incident may not occur in future with peace loving citizen of this country, a suitable direction may be issued by instituting an inquiry and respondent no. 6 may be withdrawn from the post of SHO. [4] On this writ petition, learned A.G.A. was directed on 21.6.2012 to obtain instructions and to ensure complete reply to the averments contained in the writ petition from respondent no. 6, in pursuance of the order dated 21.6.2012 respondent no. 6, Sri Indrajeet Chaturvedi, S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali, Allahabad appeared before this court on 26.6.2012 and filed his affidavit by admitting that there was entry in G.D. no. 21 at 16.05 dated 18.6.2012 showing that enquiry was done by S.I. Smt. Sati Singh Chauhan about the complaints filed by Smt. Rehana Parveen in which meditation was done by Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava consequently a child aged bout 5-6 months was handed over to Smt. Rehana Parveen, thereafter they left the police station. Smt. Rehana Parveen was not the wife of Brijesh Kumar Srivastava and that child was not born from their wedlock, no complaint was made by Smt. Kajal against Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava and no inquiry was made in this regard. [5] Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava was not arrested by the police but Ashok Kumar Srivastava was called at the police station to settle the dispute. Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava was interrogated respectfully, he was not misbehaved, neither Ashok Kumar Srivastava nor any person was taken into police custody during inquiry, which was resulted into a compromise between the parties. During that inquiry, no other person or any advocate came to the police station. Respondent no. 6 has not made any violation of the instructions issued by the Honble Supreme Court in D.K. Basus case. The present writ petition has been filed only to develop pressure upon the S.H.O. by making baseless allegations. Respondent no. 6 prayed for and granted 24 hours time to file supplementary counter affidavit, supplementary affidavit has been filed today tendering unconditional apology to the petitioner. [6] It is contended by the petitioner that the reply filed by respondent no. 6 is not proper and he has denied the allegations but he has admitted that Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava was called at the police station for the purpose of inquiry on 18.6.2012, its G.D. entry has also been made. Respondent no. 6 has misbehaved with the petitioner and his friend even Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava was called at the police station without any reason, it has been admitted by respondent no. 6 that Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava participated in median at police station and a child aged about 5-6 months was handed over to Smt. Rehana Parveen, in any case, he was not having any concern with Smt. Rehana Parveen and no case was registered at the police station, counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 6 is not explaining all correct facts, therefore, suitable directions may be issued against respondent No.6. [7] In reply to the above contention it is submitted by Sri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. that respondent no. 6 Sri Indrajeet Chaturvedi, has tendered his apology though he has denied all allegations by fairly admitting that Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava was called at the police station and the matter was settled amicably by handing over the child aged about 5-6 months to Smt. Rehana Parveen. In future respondent no.6 shall be careful so that such type of incident may not occur. [8] Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. it appears that the petitioner is a responsible practising lawyer of this court, he has filed this writ petition with the allegations that respondent no.6 had taken him in custody along with Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava without any reason and he kept detained illegally for half an hour in an arbitrary manner and remarks were passed against the mandate issued by the Honble Supreme Court in D.K. Basus case. The Supreme Court of India has issued certain guidelines in the case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal and A.K. Johari Versus State of U.P. in writ petition (Criminal) No. 592 of 1987 so that no person may be deprived of his life or personal liberty accept according to the procedure established by law. The relevant paragraphs of this judgement is quoted below: We therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures : (1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name togs with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest a such memo shall be attested by atleast one witness. who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon he is put under arrest or is detained. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of he next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest an the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is. (7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The Inspection Memo must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned Stare or Union Territory. Director, Health Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and Districts as well. (9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the illaga Magistrate for his record. (10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and state headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board. Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the concerned official liable for departmental action, also render his liable to be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in any High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The requirements, referred to above flow from Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution and need to be strictly followed. These would apply with equal force to the other governmental agencies also to which a reference has been made earlier. These requirements are in addition to the constitutional and statutory safeguards and do not detract from various other directions given by the courts from time to time in connection with the safeguarding of the rights and dignity of the arrestee. The requirements mentioned above shall be forwarded to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of every Stare/Union Territory and it shall be their obligation to circulate the same to every police station under their charge and get the same notified at every police station at conspicuous place. It would also be useful and serve larger interest to broadcast the requirements on the All India Radio besides being shown on the National network of Doordarshan and by publishing and distributing pamphlets in the local language containing these requirements for information of the general public. Creating awareness about the rights of the arrestee would in out opinion be a step in the right direction to combat the evil of custodial crime and bring in transparency and accountability. It is hoped that these requirements would help to curb, if not totally eliminate, the use of questionable methods during interrogation and investigation leading to custodial commission of crimes. [9] The requirements mentioned above, were forwarded to the D.G. of the Police and the Home Secretary of every State/Union Territory to circulate the same to every police station under their charge and to get the same notified at every police station at conspicuous place. In case, above mentioned requirements are not notified at every police station at conspicuous place, it is directed that the same shall be notified at every police station at conspicuous place and it shall be ensured by the S.S.P./S.P. of every district. [10] The respondent no.6 has tendered apology before the petitioner who has accepted the same, requested not to take any action against respondent no.6, in such a situation we are restraining to pass any adverse order in respect of the act done by respondent no.6. The apology tendered by respondent no. 6 has been accepted by the petitioner, there is no need to pass any order on the merits of this case, but we are not appreciating the behaviour of police officer done with the Advocates, the class of Advocates, is dignified, it is expected from police personnel to behave with them in a dignified manner. [11] The copy of this order be sent to D.G.P. of the State of U.P. and the Principal Secretary (Home) Government of U.P. for circulating the same to every police station of the State of U.P. and for notifying the requirement as given in the D.K. Basus case at every police station at conspicuous place. [12] We do not feel it proper to impose the cost. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
Posted on: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:39:32 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015