Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 595 (RAJ)

Ram Kishan Saini v. State of Rajasthan

2014-03-03

P.K.LOHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for claiming under-mentioned reliefs: A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the proceedings conducted by respondents under section 151, 107, 116(3) of Cr.P.C. may be held illegal and quashed. B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give compensation for at least Rs. 10,00,000/- to the petitioners for committing gross illegalities. C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to initiate investigation against the rest of the respondents in the matter of cruelty committed upon the petitioners during the police custody and for preplan illegal arrest and detention of the petitioners; D. Any other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. E. Writ Petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs. 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this writ petition, are that the first petitioner laid a criminal complaint against Mr. Prabhatilal Jat, Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh, before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1976 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for offences under Sections 323, 342, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). The criminal complaint of the first petitioner was registered as Case No.4/2013 by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30th of April 2013. Immediately thereafter, the first petitioner addressed a memorandum to respondent No.2 on 7th/8th of October 2013 against organising Dandiya Nritya and Durga Pooja. The representation submitted by the petitioner was not paid any heed by the second respondent and permission was granted to the organizers of the function with certain riders. It appears that a news article was also published in the newspaper with regard to organising of the said programme. The first petitioner and others were thereafter started a peaceful agitation against the ongoing function which commenced on 9th of October 2013. 3. Precisely, the cause of concern for petitioners and others was that organising this function would not be in public interest as it may block the space/way for the general public and there shall not remain any space for emergency vehicle/ambulance to pass through. 3. Precisely, the cause of concern for petitioners and others was that organising this function would not be in public interest as it may block the space/way for the general public and there shall not remain any space for emergency vehicle/ambulance to pass through. The concern of the petitioners and other agitators was to mitigate the hardship and inconvenience likely to be caused to the general public. 4. Being annoyed with the petitioners and other agitators, the second respondent issued arrest orders against the petitioners and in adherence of the said orders, the respondent No.6 has arrested all the petitioners and put them to the police lock-up. In the police lock up the petitioners were given serious beatings in presence of respondents No.2, 4 & 5. Thereafter, the concerned SHO presented a criminal complaint under Section 151, 107, 116(3) Cr.P.C. before the second respondent on 10th of October 2013. The said action was taken by the SHO concerned at the behest of second respondent who was inimical with the petitioner. All these actions were actuated with malice and were designed to camouflage his omissions. The second respondent, thereafter, instead of acceding to the petitioners' request, passed the judicial order for judicial custody and posted the matter for 15th of October 2013. On 11.10.2013, a bail bond worth Rs. 5 lacs was presented by one Champalal Soni but the same was rejected without assigning any reason. Aggrieved from this action of the second respondent, a revision petition was preferred before Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Suratgarh. As per the orders passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- was presented before the second respondent on 10.10.2013 but the same was not accepted and were kept by the second respondent. Eventually, the petitioners were released on 13th October 2013 after remaining in illegal confinement for four days. 5. Appalled by the actions of the second respondent, petitioner No.1 by his letter dated 14.10.2013, requested 3rd respondent to make investigation into the matter for the atrocities committed on the first petitioner and the illegal action of the 2nd respondent for keeping him in police custody for four days. After release of the first petitioner, revision petition which was preferred before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge was withdrawn with liberty to file criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. After release of the first petitioner, revision petition which was preferred before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge was withdrawn with liberty to file criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the action of the second respondent is dehors the law and by keeping him in custody for four days illegally the second respondent has violated fundamental right of life and liberty of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs craved in the writ petition. 7. Mr. G.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that initiation of the proceedings under Section 151, 107, 116(3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioners was per-se illegal and was actuated with malice and as such these proceedings are liable to be declared as illegal and be quashed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record. 9. In my considered opinion, the case in hand involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be made subject matter of judicial scrutiny in writ jurisdiction. While it is true that the fundamental right of life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a sacrosanct right and no citizen can be deprived of his right of life and liberty without due process of law, but any proceedings undertaken by the police officer by resorting to Section 151 Cr.P.C. to prevent commission of a cognizable offence and as a consequence thereof arresting an individual cannot be categorized as an action dehors the law. Section 151 Cr.P.C. empowers a police officer to arrest someone to prevent commission of cognizable offences. The complete text of Section 151 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under: 151. Section 151 Cr.P.C. empowers a police officer to arrest someone to prevent commission of cognizable offences. The complete text of Section 151 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under: 151. Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences.- (1) A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented (2) No person arrested under sub-section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Code or of any other law for the time being in force. 10. A bare perusal of Section 151 Cr.P.C. makes it crystal clear that a police officer is authorised to arrest a person, if there is an apprehension that he is likely to commit cognizable offence, without orders from a Magistrate, or without a warrant of arrest. The provisions are described as preventive action of the police. In view of the fact that arrest of the petitioner was under Section 151 Cr.P.C. by the police officer on being satisfied that it is necessary to prevent commission of a cognizable offence, it is obviously not possible in a writ proceeding to decide whether the action of the police in arresting the petitioner was bona fide or with some sinister motive. The petitioner has of course vociferously contended that he has been illegally detained but for ascertaining illegal detention a thorough enquiry is required and the same can only be proved by cogent and convincing evidence. On the basis of materials available on record, it is not possible to draw an inference that action of the police in arresting the petitioner under Section 151 Cr.P.C. was illegal and uncalled for. 11. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am not persuaded to draw an inference on the basis of available materials that at the threshold the petitioner was arrested under Section 151 Cr.P.C. without any rhyme and reason. The subsequent period of his detention was obviously for some procedural wrangles which prima facie cannot render the original action illegal or dehors the law. The subsequent period of his detention was obviously for some procedural wrangles which prima facie cannot render the original action illegal or dehors the law. Thus, viewed from any angle, I am not persuaded to interfere in the matter and consequently the writ petition is dismissed summarily. 12. It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not be an impediment for the petitioners to seek redressal in accordance with law.Writ Petition Dismissed without Prejudice to other Remedy. *******