Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 291 (ALL)

INDERPREET SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-01-20

RAMESH SINHA, REKHA DIKSHIT

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha, J.—By means of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay damages to the petitioner for custodial torture of the petitioner and assault upon the petitioner and abusing in petitioner by the respondent police official and police constable viz. respondent No. 4 to 8 while in confinement of police from evening of 27.12.2012 till he was sent to the Court on 29.12.2012 and for handcuffing of the petitioner and further to take action including penal action against the erring respondents police official and constables (respondent Nos. 4 to 8) for custodial torture of the petitioner, assault upon the petitioner and handcuffing of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner is a student of class-XII and was pursuing his studies as a regular student of Sri Krishna Inter College Parshurampur, District Chandauli. His father and uncle were having hotel by the name of Hotel Basant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the hotel’) at G.T. Road near Roadway Bus Stand in City of Mughal Sarai. In the premises of said hotel a photostat shop also exist and run by them by the name of Khalsa Photostat. The said hotel and business of Khalsa photostat was earlier owned and run by the grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Late Sunder Singh and after his death the same was devolved upon his sons, namely, Satpal Singh (uncle of the petitioner) and Sarbajeet Singh @ Raju Singh (father of the petitioner). The uncle and father of the petitioner jointly reside in their ancestral house situated at 426, Eastern Bazar, Mughal Sarai, District Chandauli. 3. In the night of 22/23.12.2012 some police personnel of police station Kotwali, Mughal Sarai, district Chandauli came at the aforesaid hotel and asked the uncle of the petitioner that some persons of the Circle Officer have to stay hence some rooms are required in the hotel immediately. As the hotel was fully occupied and no room was available, the uncle of the petitioner told the police personnel that all the rooms were occupied by the customers, hence it was not possible to provide rooms immediately upon which the police personnel got angry and started hurling abuses and threatened petitioner’s uncle and said that you do not know C.O. Saheb, you have not vacated rooms for him now it will be difficult for your hotel to function. 4. 4. In the evening of 27.12.2012 at about 6 p.m., 4 police constables, i.e., respondent Nos. 5 to 8, namely, Constable Vinay Dubey, Constable Santosh Tiwari, Constable Anand Bhadur Singh and Constable R.K. Chauhan came to the premises of the said hotel and forcibly took away the petitioner stating that some interrogation has to be done and he shall be let off after a short time. The said occurrence had taken place in the presence of one Rajeev Kumar, a social worker, who had come to the shop for getting some papers photostat. The father and uncle of the petitioner including Sri Rajeev Kumar had requested the police to prepare memo and then only take away the petitioner but the aforesaid police personnel did not accede to their request. Sri Rajeev Kumar has sworn an affidavit on 7.1.2013 regarding the occurrence which had taken place on 27.12.2012 wherein petitioner was taken away by the police from the photostat shop. After bringing, the petitioner to police station Mughalsarai in the evening of 27.12.2012, the petitioner was illegally confined in police lock-up room which bore the signboard of ‘Purush Bandi Grah’. The said police lock-up is hardly 10 feet away from the office in police station. The petitioner was not let off even after several hours, hence petitioner’s cousin brother, namely, Balbir Singh son of Satpal Singh, who is an Advocate and petitioner’s uncle went to police station Mughal Sarai at about 9 o’clock on 27.12.2012 itself. At that time, the petitioner was confined in the said lock-up. The uncle and cousin brother of the petitioner enquired from the police constables, who had brought the petitioner from the said hotel-photostat shop as to why petitioner is confined in the police lock up as he is not an accused in any case, hence if the interrogation is over then he be let off but the police constable did not permitted him to go and further threatened them to go out of the police station. When the petitioner was not let off by the police on 27.12.2012, the cousin brother of the petitioner moved an application to the Chairman National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.H.R.C.’ through fax in the morning of 28.12.2012 between 10-11 o’clock informing about the occurrence dated 27.12.2012 of forcibly taken away the petitioner by the police personnel from his photostat shop. In the said information, the cousin brother of the petitioner has expressed his apprehension that the petitioner may be implicated in some false case, a copy of the said application was also sent to Director General of Police, U.P., Principal Secretary (Home) Government of U.P., Lucknow by fax on 28.12.2012 copy of which has been annexed as annexure-1 to the present petition. 5. It appears that on 29.12.2012, the petitioner was produced before the remand Magistrate, who sent him to jail. While the petitioner was confined from 27.12.2012 till 29.12.2012, it is alleged that he was tortured by the police personnel, i.e., respondent Nos. 4 to 8 at police station Mughal Sarain, District Chandauli. He also received injuries in the incident and when the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate, his medical examination was ordered and the same was conducted on 29.12.2012 in police custody at District Government Women Hospital, Mughal Sarai, a copy of the medical examination report of the petitioner is annexed as annexure-5 to the present petition. It is alleged that on 28.12.2012 at about 5:34 p.m., phone call came on the mobile phone of cousin brother of the petitioner from the said police station whereupon he was called upon at the said police station and when he reached there he was also man handled and abused alongwith his father, who accompanied him. It is alleged that some altercation took place between cousin brother of petitioner and he was also threatened by the police personnel to ruin his profession and falsely implicating him in a criminal case. Sri Balbir Singh also got himself medically examined on 31.12.2012 and sent a complaint on 2.1.2013 to Chairman National Minority Commission about the conduct of the police personnel of police station Mughal Sarai. The uncle, father and cousin brother of the petitioner made a complaint about the illegal and forcibly taking away of the petitioner by the police personnel of police station Mughal Sarai, i.e., respondent Nos. 5 to 8 on 27.12.2012 at 6 p.m. on the pretext of interrogation and would be let off in a short time but when he was not released by them and further confined in police lock-up illegally without any case pending against him. 5 to 8 on 27.12.2012 at 6 p.m. on the pretext of interrogation and would be let off in a short time but when he was not released by them and further confined in police lock-up illegally without any case pending against him. The police of concerned police station became annoyed with the complaint made by the family members of the petitioner and they in order to take vengeance against the petitioner and his family members falsely implicated him in a criminal case which was registered as case crime No. 412 of 2012 under Section 41 Cr.P.C., 411, 414 I.P.C. at police station Mughal Sarai, District Chandauli showing an occurrence which is stated to have taken place on 28.12.2012 at about 3:45 p.m. at Baburi Ali Nagar Triangular Crossing, Chaka Modh, Mughal Sarai and further showing that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons have been brought in Crime No. 412 of 2012 the police station Mughal Sarai at 18:05. 6. A recovery memo was prepared by the police which was endorsed in G.D. No. 40 dated 28.12.2012 showing the arrest of the petitioner alongwith four other co-accused persons showing the recovery of motorcycles in pursuance of which present F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner and four other co-accused persons. When the petitioner was produced on 29.12.2012 for remand under Section 167 Cr.P.C., he was handcuffed alongwith four other co-accused persons in the Court campus photograph of which were taken and has been annexed as annexure-7 to the present petition. The petitioner was thereafter released on bail by the competent Court and after his release, he moved an application on 7.1.2013 to the Chairman National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi about the incident dated 27.12.2012 in which he was forcibly and illegally taken from his father’s business place and falsely implicated in a criminal case on 28.12.2012. Further alleging that while he was in police custody, he was badly beaten by the police officers, i.e., respondent Nos. 4 to 8, a copy of the said application was also sent to the D.G.P. U.P., Principal Secretary (Home) and S.P. Chandauli and when no action was taken against the said police officials, the petitioner send a reminder to the S.P. concerned through registered post on 22.1.2013 to the Chairman N.H.R.C. 7. 4 to 8, a copy of the said application was also sent to the D.G.P. U.P., Principal Secretary (Home) and S.P. Chandauli and when no action was taken against the said police officials, the petitioner send a reminder to the S.P. concerned through registered post on 22.1.2013 to the Chairman N.H.R.C. 7. It appears that the S.P. Chandauli endorsed the said complaint of the petitioner to C.O. Sadar Sri Sudhakar Yadav-respondent No. 4 against whom the allegation was made by the petitioner alongwith other police officials, hence the petitioner requested the S.P. Chandauli to himself take cognizance of the application dated 7.1.2013 through a registered post on 18.2.2013. The petitioner did not get any response to the application dated 16.2.2013. The petitioner has not received any intimation from the office of S.P. Chandauli fixing dated regarding his complaint dated 7.1.2013, 17.1.2013. On 23.2.2013, the Assistant Registrar (Law) N.H.R.C. wrote a letter to the S.P. Chandauli to look into the complaint of the petitioner dated 7.1.2013 and on the order passed by the Commission on 20.2.103. 8. The petitioner was also informed by the Assistant Registrar (Law) N.H.R.C. that his complaint has been transmitted to the concerned authority for such action as deemed appropriate but no action was taken by the S.P. Chandauli and other police officials on the complaint of the petitioner dated 7.1.2013 addressed to the N.H.R.C. which has been transmitted by the N.H.R.C. to the S.P. Chandauli, hence the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petitioner. 9. On 2.11.2015 another Bench of this Court has passed the following order : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay exemplary damages to the petitioner for his custodial torture and assault to which he was subjected by the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 while he was in police confinement from the evening of 27.12.2012 to 29.12.2012 in the lockup of P.S.-Kotwali Mughalsarai, district-Chandauli. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a student of class-XII studying in Krishna Inter College, Parshurampur, district-Chandauli at the relevant point of time. 4 to 8 while he was in police confinement from the evening of 27.12.2012 to 29.12.2012 in the lockup of P.S.-Kotwali Mughalsarai, district-Chandauli. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a student of class-XII studying in Krishna Inter College, Parshurampur, district-Chandauli at the relevant point of time. He further submitted that the police personnel of police station Kotwali, Mughalsarai had come to hotel Basant, which is run by father of the petitioner and his uncle Satpal Singh and asked his uncle Satpal Singh who was present in the hotel premises, to provide some rooms in the hotel immediately. However, since the hotel was fully occupied, the petitioner’s uncle expressed his inability to provide any room to the police personnel on which, he got immensely annoyed and angry and started abusing and threatened him with dire consequences. He next submitted that in the evening of 27.12.2012 at about 4.00 p.m. constables Vinay Dubey, R.K. Chauhan, Santosh Tiwari and Anand Bahadur Singh who have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in the present writ petition, came to the premises of hotel Basant and forcibly took away the petitioner with them on the pretext of questioning him in the presence of Rajiv Kumar, an eminent social worker and petitioner’s uncle and father. The aforesaid police personnel illegally kept the petitioner confined within the lock up (police bandigrih) of P.S.-Kotwali from the evening of 27.12.2012 till 29.12.2012 on which date they produced him before the Court after falsely implicating him in Case Crime No. 412 of 2012, under Sections-41 Cr P.C., 411 and 414 I.P.C., P.S.-Mughal Sarai which was registered in respect of an incident which had taken place there on 28.12.2012 at about 3.45 p.m. He further submitted that during his confinement in police bandigrih from 27.12.2012 to 29.12.2012 the petitioner was abused, tortured and severely beaten by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 as a result, he received multiple injuries. Copy of the injury report of the petitioner has been brought on record as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. He next submitted that in view of the above, the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are liable to pay exemplary compensation to the petitioner for keeping him under illegal detention and subjecting him to torture, harassment and severe beating. Copy of the injury report of the petitioner has been brought on record as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. He next submitted that in view of the above, the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are liable to pay exemplary compensation to the petitioner for keeping him under illegal detention and subjecting him to torture, harassment and severe beating. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition have been denied by the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in their counter-affidavits. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that in order to ascertain the truth, it will be expedient in the interest of justice to enquire into the matter. In view of the above, we direct that an enquiry in the matter shall be conducted either by the District and Sessions Judge, Chandauli himself or by any other Additional District and Sessions Judge. The enquiry officer shall submit his report to this Court within five months in a sealed cover. The S.P., Chandauli is also directed to transmit all the documents pertaining to the petitioner’s detention to the District and Sessions Judge, Chandauli forthwith. List immediately after five months.” 10. It appears that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 21.11.2015, the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1/Enquiry Officer, Chandauli conducted an enquiry in the matter and has exonerated the respondent No. 4 Sudhakar Yadav stating that he had no role to play in taking away the petitioner on 27.12.2012 from his hotel as the petitioner was involved in an incident dated 28.12.2012 which has taken place at 3:45 p.m. he was arrested by the police during the course of checking and was wanted in Crime No. 412 of 2012 registered at police station Mughal Sarai, district Chandauli under Section 41, 411, 414 I.P.C. and the injuries which have been sustained by the petitioner was a result of his arrest and the police of police station Mughal Sarai had taken the petitioner from police station to the Court of Magistrate for remand in handcuffed position. 11. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties. 12. Heard Sri Sukhendu Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as respondent Nos. 4 to 8, who are police personnel. 13. 11. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties. 12. Heard Sri Sukhendu Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as respondent Nos. 4 to 8, who are police personnel. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner, who is a student of Class-XII was forcibly and illegally taken from his father’s business establishment which was situated at G.T. Road on 27.12.2012 and kept him at police station from 27.12.2012 till 29.12.2012 on which date he was produced before the remand Magistrate. He submits that during the said period, the petitioner was tortured at police station Mughal Sarai, District Chandauli by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 on account of which he also received injury merely because his uncle, who is running the aforesaid hotel alongwith his father had not provided room to respondent No. 4 for staying of his persons as no room was available on the said date and when a complaint was made by the uncle and cousin brother of the petitioner to the N.H.R.C. on 28.12.2012 at about 10-11 a.m. about the said incident taken place on 27.12.2012 the police officials became annoyed and had falsely implicated him in case crime No. 412 of 2012 which is said to have taken place at 3:45 p.m. on 28.12.2012 showing his arrest alongwith three co-accused persons and recovery of three motorcycle. He further argued that the petitioner was also produced from police station to Court of Magistrate in handcuffed position which is evident from the photograph annexed with the present petition. He argued that when the petitioner was produced before the remand Magistrate, he was medically examined and as per the medical report injuries were found on his person which shows that assault was made by the police in police lock-up. He argued that high handedness of the police is apparent from the fact that in spite of his complaint being addressed to the N.H.R.C. transmitted to the S.P. Chandauli, no action being taken against the police officer, hence he approached this Court praying for grant of exemplary compensation for illegal detention and the atrocities committed by the police personnel and for being falsely implicated in a criminal case. He further pointed out that though charge-sheet has been submitted in case crime No. 412 of 2012, he challenged the proceedings of the said before this Court in Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 36892 of 2013 in which interim order was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 11.10.2013 and proceedings of the said case has been stayed and the matter is still sub-judice before this Court. 14. Learned A.G.A. Sri Ashish Pandey, who represents respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to 8 states that respondent No. 4, who is the Dy. S.P. for whom the room in hotel was required by respondent Nos. 5 to 8 had not visited the premises of the hotel. He further pointed out from the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 Sudhakar Yadav that the cousin brother of the petitioner, namely, Balbir Singh also filed a writ petition before this Court in which this Court vide order dated 22.3.2013 directed the Balbir Singh to approach the S.P. Chandauli for his grievance and under the order of S.P. Chandauli the Additional S.P. Chandauli conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on 2.5.2013 that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case of theft of motorcycle with other accused and he was arrested by the police on 28.12.2012 and sent to jail and in peshbandi false allegation has been levelled against the respondent No. 4 and other police personnel. The said report of the Dy. S.P. has not been challenged by the Balbir Singh. The other respondent Nos. 5 to 8 have also denied the allegation of petitioner. He vehemently refuted the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, i.e., crime No. 412 of 2012 and he was arrested at 3:45 p.m. by the police of police station Mughal Sarai alongwith four other co-accused person and they were lodged at police station on 28.12.2012 at 6 p.m. in the evening. He submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 2.11.2015, an enquiry was also conducted by the Additional District Judge and in his report respondent No. 4 has been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. He submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 2.11.2015, an enquiry was also conducted by the Additional District Judge and in his report respondent No. 4 has been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was arrested by the police on 28.12.2012 as he was involved in case crime No. 412 of 2012 and so far as the injuries received by the petitioner are concerned the same was caused as a result of his arrest as he was trying to flew away from the place of occurrence but he could not dispute the fact that the petitioner was taken from the business establishment of his father and uncle and confined in police lock-up on 27.12.2012 till 29.12.2012, i.e., the date on which he was produced before the remand Magistrate and information of the same was sent through fax by the cousin brother of the petitioner to the N.H.R.C. on 28.12.2012 between 10-11 a.m. Copy of which has also been sent to the D.G.P. U.P. and Pricipal Secretary (Home) Lucknow apprehending that the petitioner may be falsely implicated in a criminal case. 15. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 16. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was a student and a boy of tender age and was pursuing his studies at the time of incident and his uncle and father are running business of hotel and photostat shop. The police personnel, i.e., respondent Nos. 5 to 8 at the behest of respondent No. 4, who was posted as Circle Officer visited at the hotel owned by petitioner’s father and uncle on 23.12.2012 asking them to provide room for the stay of some persons of respondent No. 4 which was refused by them on account of the fact that no room is available and all the rooms are occupied by the customers. On account of said refusal, the police personnel became annoyed and on 27.12.2012, they again visited at the business establishment of his father and forcibly taken away the petitioner on the pretext of some interrogation saying that they would let off the petitioner after interrogation. On account of said refusal, the police personnel became annoyed and on 27.12.2012, they again visited at the business establishment of his father and forcibly taken away the petitioner on the pretext of some interrogation saying that they would let off the petitioner after interrogation. When the police personnel did not let off the petitioner, the uncle and cousin brother of the petitioner reached at the police station and asked the police personnel to let off the petitioner on which they were threatened. Thereafter on 28.12.2012 a complaint was made by the cousin of the petitioner to the N.H.R.C., D.G.P. U.P. and Principal Secretary (Home) U.P. Lucknow by fax between 10-11 a.m. informing them about the illegal arrest of the petitioner which is evident from the application as well as receiving annexed as annexure-7 to the present petition. The respondent Nos. 4 to 8 apprehending some action against them in order to justify the illegal detention of the petitioner at police lock-up have falsely implicated the petitioner on 28.12.2012 at 3:45 p.m. in a criminal case which was registered as case crime No. 412 of 2012 at police station Mughal Sarai, District Chandauli in which petitioner was shown to be arrested alongwith four other co-accused persons on the same day at 6 p.m. and produced him before the remand Magistrate on 29.12.2012, who sent the petitioner to jail. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court by which the District Judge was directed to look into the matter and verify the allegations made by the petitioner, the Additional District Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who enquired the matter and submitted his report on 4.4.2015 wherein he has exonerated respondent No. 4 observing that he had no role to play. It is further stated in the said report that so far as injury received by the petitioner are concerned the same was received during the course of arrest as he was trying to flee from the place of occurrence. Against the said report petitiioner has raised objection by filing affidavit dated 9th May 2016 stating that the enquiry was not conducted in a proper and fair manner as the statement of all the officers were recorded behind the back of the petitioner and neither the copies of the statement was supplied to the petitioner nor the copies of documents collected during the investigation was supplied to him. He further argued that the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer to the effect that the claim of the victim-petitioner that he was taken away by the police in the evening of 27.12.2012 not appearing to be true and he was arrested on the spot on 28.12.2012 at 3:45 p.m. relating to case crime No. 412 of 2012 is absolutely illegal and is against the record. The statement of the petitioner, his father, uncle and one Rajeev were not considered by the Enquiry Officer and further the fax messages coupled with the transmitting report have also not been considered. 17. From the perusal of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer it appears that the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1 has been swayed by the police personnel specially respondent No. 4 giving him clean chit regarding the illegal taking away of the petitioner on 27.12.2012 at 6 p.m. in the evening from his father’s business establishment and taken into account that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, i.e., case crime No. 412 of 2012 in which he was arrested on 28.12.2012 at 3:45 p.m. for which a fard recovery memo was prepared alongwith four other accused persons and the injuries which has been sustained by the petitioner were caused during the course of his arrest as he tried to flee away from his place of occurrence. The plea of the petitioner that he was taken forcibly on 27.12.2012 from his father’s business establishment and lodged him in police lock-up on the same day and he was not released by the police personnel as assured by them in the presence of Rajeev Kumar, his father and uncle without preparing any police papers saying that he would be shorty released after interrogation and he was put in lock-up from 27.12.2012 till 28.12.2012 and when the complaint was made by family members of the petitioner against the police attrocities to the N.H.R.C. on 28.12.2012 between 10-11 a.m. and also to the I.G. Varanasi and D.G.P. U.P. as well as Principal Secretary Home U.P. Lucknow apprehending some action against them respondent Nos. 4 to 8 implicated the petitioner in incident which took place on 28.12.2012 at 3:45 p.m. and showed his arrest alongwith four other co-accused persons registered an F.I.R. on the basis of recovery memo prepared on the same day at 6:05 p.m. at concerned police station has been totally ignored by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer further overlooked the fact that the petitioner was kept in police lock-up from 6 p.m. in the evening of 27.12.2012 till 3:45 p.m. of 28.12.2012 when he was shown to be arrested in case crime No. 412 of 2012 by the police and before that on 28.12.2012 the cousin brother of the petitioner has already made a complaint to the Chairman N.H.R.C., Principal Secretary (Home) and D.G.P. U.P. between 10-11 a.m. regarding illegal detention of the petitioner. It is apparent that respondent Nos. 5 to 8 at the behest of respondent No. 4 had gone to the hotel of petitioner’s uncle and father on 22/23 December, 2017 for getting a room in the hotel and when the same was refused they threatened for the consequences which he would face and constable respondent Nos. 5 to 8 without their being any such need of respondent No. 4 would not have been visited the hotel of petitioner’s uncle and father and to say that Sri Sudhakar Yadav had no role to play as has been stated by the Additional District Judge does not found to be convincing at all. Moreover, the plea of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 is also not acceptable at all. The illegal confinement, handcuffing and torture of the petitioner in police lock-up by respondent Nos. Moreover, the plea of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 is also not acceptable at all. The illegal confinement, handcuffing and torture of the petitioner in police lock-up by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 shows the high handedness of the police personnel, hence the said act and conduct of said respondents is not appreciable as by the said act, they have malign the reputation of the petitioner, who was a school going boy of tender age as is also evident from his photograph in handcuffing position with other accused of case crime No. 412 of 2012 annexed with the petition as annexure-7 at page-51, in the society by implicating him in a false case the proceedings of which has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in which proceedings have been stayed by this Court and the matter is pending before this Court, hence we deemed it proper in the interest of justice that petitioner, who is a student of class-XII is entitled for an exemplary compensation. We grant a compensation of Rs. two lacs to the petitioner which shall be paid by the State as it has also failed in its duty to protect the innocent persons being a victim of police atrocities. 18. The Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. shall pay a compensation of Rs. two lacs to the petitioner within a period of one month from today. 19. So far as other prayer made in the present petition by the petitioner are concerned, we are of the view that the same are covered by granting the aforesaid relief. 20. The petition stands partly allowed to that extent only. 21. The Registrar General is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. for its compliance.