Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 252 (GAU)

Vanlalhruaia v. Tluanga Parte

2004-04-01

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2004
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. By this application a prayer has been made for awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Petitioner. As per the averments made in the writ petition, he was arrested by the Police on 31.01.01 in Aizawl P.S. Case No. 830/2000 Under Section 468 / 471 of IPC. He was produced before the Magistrate First Class, Aizawl District, Aizawl on the same date. The Petitioner informed his counsel that he was tortured by the investigation Officer while in Police lockup. According to the information furnished to his counsel, the nature of torture meted out to the Petitioner was as follows: (a) The Case I/O assaulted the accd. And pointed his Pistol to the head of the accd. and threatened him that his life was under the mercy of him (Case I/O). (b) That by using his Pistol Butt, the Case I/O beatened the accd. on his body. (c) The Case I/O by using his both hand clapped together both the ears of the accd. which resulted hearing problems. (d) That the Case I/O let the accd. down on the floor and using his legs trampled over the body of the accd. etc. 2. On being furnished with the above information, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner allegedly prayed before the Court to allow medical check-up of the Petitioner. The prayer was granted and the Petitioner was sent for medical check-up. Nothing has been stated in the writ petition as to what transpired during medical check-up. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the investigation agency violated Sections 330 / 331 of the IPC and Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. A reference has been made to the decision of the Apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal as reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 . 3. With the aforesaid narration of the alleged incident, a further statement has been made in the writ petition that the Petitioner is entitled to monetary compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Police and the State which according to the Petitioner are vicariously liable. 4. I have heard Dr. C.V.L. Auva, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and also heard learned Govt. Advocate, Mizoram for the Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. 5. 2,00,000/- from the Police and the State which according to the Petitioner are vicariously liable. 4. I have heard Dr. C.V.L. Auva, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and also heard learned Govt. Advocate, Mizoram for the Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. 5. Before dealing with the merit of the case I would like to project a few discrepancies as could be easily found on a bare perusal of the writ petition. The affidavit in support of the averments made in the writ petition has been sworn before the Special Superintendent, Central Jail, Aizawl and not before the oath Commissioner of the High Court Registry. The full name of the Petitioner is not discernible from the signature in the affidavit. The Vakalatnama in which the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has put his signature as a token acceptance of his nomination by the Petitioner to appear and act for him in the writ petition, the name and signature of the Petitioner is not available. Thus, there is no authorization on behalf of the learned Counsel by the Petitioner to file the writ petition and appear and argue the case on his behalf, in the eye of law. 6. There is also no averments in the writ petition to the effect that the Petitioner has no other adequate and alternative remedy and the remedy sought for is compete and adequate. As per the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, such a statement should invariably be incorporated in every application under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India. There is also no pagination of the Annexures apart from the same being not authenticated by any attestation. The so called Vakalatnama has been placed before the Annexures. It is not understood as to how the Registry could entertain such a writ petition. 7. On the above infirmities alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, instead of dismissing the writ petition on such technicalities the merits of the case have been gone into. 8. The so called Vakalatnama has been placed before the Annexures. It is not understood as to how the Registry could entertain such a writ petition. 7. On the above infirmities alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, instead of dismissing the writ petition on such technicalities the merits of the case have been gone into. 8. On perusal of the writ petition, more particularly, paragraph- 3 thereof in which the alleged torture on the writ Petitioner has been narrated, it is seen that the Petitioner has not made a direct statement of such torture by the Respondent No. 1, but has made a statement of allegedly narrating the alleged torture to his counsel. There is also no statement as to what transpired during medical examination of the Petitioner. After such vague and indefinite statement, the writ Petitioner has abruptly referred to the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and the provisions of the IPC and the Constitution of India. On that basis a prayer has been made for awarding a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the Respondents. I am afraid, with such vague and indefinite statements no writ petition is maintainable. The writ Court cannot be used in this manner like that of an agency vested with power and jurisdiction of investigation. The Petitioner, if at all, he was meted out with the torture as stated in the writ petition, could have lodged an FIR against the Respondent No. 1. He also could have filed an application before the learned Magistrate before whom he was produced in connection with the aforesaid Police Case. It would have been another thing if such filing of an FIR or application had not resulted to any action. In the writ petition the photo copies of the injury report have been annexed which are also not authenticated by certifying the same to be true copies as required under the High Court Rules. Even if such injury report is taken on its face value, only reflection is that the Petitioner sustained minor injury. However, there is nothing to indicate as to how he had sustained such injury. It would be too much to attribute a case of such injury to the Respondent No. 1 in absence of any other materials and in the manner and method in which the writ petition has been framed. 9. However, there is nothing to indicate as to how he had sustained such injury. It would be too much to attribute a case of such injury to the Respondent No. 1 in absence of any other materials and in the manner and method in which the writ petition has been framed. 9. All the Respondents have entered appearance in the case. The Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 have filed a joint affidavit and the Respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit on his own behalf As in the case of Annexures annexed to the writ petition, there is no pagination in the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 1 and yet the same has been entertained by the Registry. In their affidavits, the Respondents have denied that they have caused any injury to the writ Petitioner. Reacting to the averments made in the writ petition to the effect that he had assaulted the Petitioner and pointed his pistol to him, the Respondent No. 1 has stated in his affidavit that he was not in possession of a pistol and thus there was no question of assaulting the Petitioner with the same. He has further taken a stand that in case of causing any injury to the Petitioner he would have suffered bruises and there would have been traces of bleeding and their mark would have been found. 10. In view of such stand in the writ petition which I have already held to be vague and indefinite and the stand of the Respondents towards total denial of causing any bodily injury to the Petitioner, the claim made by the Petitioner is not at all acceptable. The writ petition is misconceived and devoid of any merit. In my considered opinion, the inherent infirmities in filing of the writ petition and the manner and method in which the case has been framed on the basis of which a prayer for compensation has been made is an abuse of the process of law. During the course of hearing, the learned, Counsel appearing for the Petitioner made a disclosure that the Petitioner is his personal driver and that he is personally aware of the fact of torturing the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 1. He was reminded not to argue his case on that basis lest one gets an impression that the Court is being influenced with his alleged personal knowledge. He was reminded not to argue his case on that basis lest one gets an impression that the Court is being influenced with his alleged personal knowledge. With such an approach coupled with the infirmities noticed towards filing the writ petition and the manner and method in which the alleged incident has been framed in the writ petition, leave no manner of doubt that the same has been filed with an ulterior motive taking a chance for favourable consideration towards obtaining the order for compensation. The writ court cannot be taken for a ride in this manner. 11. For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1000/-. The Registry shall be careful in future in entertaining such writ petition and for that matter any other applications which are filed without due compliance of rules of procedure prescribed under Gauhati High Court Rules. Petition dismissed.