Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 637 (GAU)

Naba Jyoti Hazarika v. State of Assam

2021-10-29

MALASRI NANDI, N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos. 1-3; Mr. U.B. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and Mr. H.C. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the alleged illegal action of the respondent No. 4, the Officer In-Charge of Chandrapur Police Station in directing the petitioner to report to the police station and subjecting him to various illegal acts of compelling him to sign documents to show non-existent loans, amounting to Rs.50,000, Rs.1,50,000 and Rs.2,00,000, at the instance of the respondent No. 4 and for taking necessary action against the said respondent No. 4. 3. From the pleadings, it appears that the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had made certain allegation against the petitioner. However, the respondent No. 4 rather than registering any FIR case on the basis of such a complaint, directed the petitioner to report to the police station and asking him to execute the aforesaid documents without making any verification of the correctness of the allegations made by the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner does not owe any money to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 but had made false allegation against him. 4. Be that as it may, it is the case of the petitioner that without any case being registered against the petitioner, the police could not have directed him to report to the police station or execute any document at the instance of the respondent No. 4. It appears from the pleadings that the State Government had taken cognizance of such unauthorised act of the respondent No. 4 in directing the petitioner to be present in the police station and also to execute the documents. In that regard, the authorities had already initiated a departmental inquiry against the respondent No. 4 and on completion of the departmental inquiry awarded the punishment of “censure” to the respondent No. 4 for his unauthorised act of directing the petitioner to appear in the police station without registering any FIR against him. 5. In that regard, the authorities had already initiated a departmental inquiry against the respondent No. 4 and on completion of the departmental inquiry awarded the punishment of “censure” to the respondent No. 4 for his unauthorised act of directing the petitioner to appear in the police station without registering any FIR against him. 5. Under the circumstances, we are also of the view that if the authorities had taken necessary action against the respondent No. 4 for his unauthorised act of directing the petitioner to report to the police station and execute necessary documents, nothing further is required to be examined by this court in this petition. 6. However, Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been wrongfully detained in the police station for several hours and made to execute documents of non-existing loans which he was compelled to sign and as such, he may be given liberty to seek necessary compensation against the erring police personal, i.e., respondent No. 4. 7. We are also of the view that if the petitioner is able to prove wrongful detention in the police station and made to perform acts against his will by the petitioner, he would certainly have the remedy of seeking appropriate compensation in accordance with law. Accordingly, while dosing this petition, we grant liberty to the petitioner as sought for to approach the competent forum to seek compensation against the respondent No. 4 or any such erring police personnel for any wrongful detention or unlawful act. 8. With the above observation, the present petition stands closed.