Gongula Venkateswara Rao vs The S.H.O., Vissannapeta P.S. and Others

V. Rajagopala Reddy, J.—The telegram issued by the petitioner was treated as taken-up writ petition, since the matter pertains to the harassment of the petitioner''s father by Vissannapeta Police, thus being a public interest litigation. After notices were issued to the respondents 1 to 3, counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3.

The allegations in the telegram are that the father of the petitioner Gangula Erra Gopaiah, aged 70 years, was taken away forcibly by the 4th respondent, S.I. of Police on 20-10-96 and was detained at the police station. It was further alleged that a false case might be booked against the petitioner and the detenu for the discharge of a promissory note, for which they were not responsible.

The detenu was produced on 12-11-96 before this Court and on the same day this Court passed the following order :

"The alleged detenue Gangula Erra Gopaiah is produced along with the counter-affidavit affixing his attested photograph for purpose of identification.

Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

Though in the counter-affidavit it is stated that the detenu was called to the Police Station only on 30-10-1996 and was sent away on the same day, after questioning, the detenu states to our question in Court to have been taken away on 29-10-96 and detained in the Police Station till 31-10-96 and to have been released only then. He states that during his detention he was not ill-treated or assaulted. In the counter-affidavit the Sub-Inspector of Police has stated that as he found the dispute between the complainant Battula Nagamma and the petitioner and his father, the detenu, to be a civil one, he asked the parties to settle the dispute in a civil Court and necessary entries regarding that matter have also been made in the G.D. Register.

Since there is an allegation of illegal detention of the detenu since 29-10-96 till 31-10-96, which fact has been denied in the counter-affidavit, we direct Mr. H. J. Dora, Addl. Director General of Police, C.B. C.I.D. to hold an enquiry into the allegations and submit a report to this Court within four weeks. The enquiry be held in the area of Visannapeta Police Station as the detenu states that he can get witnesses to substantiate his version and that it is not possible for him to bring the witnesses to Hyderabad. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna, at Machilipatnam, is also directed to afford protection to the petitioner and the detenu from any intimidation or threat to be practised against them in the matter of enquiry. The deponent to the counter-affidavit is also directed not to interfere with the liberty of the petitioner and the detenu or to intimidate them in any manner or influence the enquiry in any manner."

As per the above order, the allegation of the detenu was that he was taken away on 29-10-1996 and was detained in the police station till 31-10-96, when he was released. But he wag not ill-treated or assaulted during his detention. In the affidavit filed, the 4th respondent stated that he found the dispute between Battula Nagamma and the detenu and his son, as a civil one and he asked the parties to settle the dispute in a civil Court and made necessary entries in the G.D. Register. This Court, finding that there was an allegation of illegal detention, which was denied by the S.I. of police, directed the Addl. Director General of Police, C.B. C.I.D, to hold an enquiry into the allegations and submit a report.

Accordingly, as per the directions of the Addl. Director General of Police, CBCID, the Superintendent of Police, CID(R), Hyderabad, conducted an enquiry, with regard to the illegal detention of the detenu in the police station from 29-10-1996 to 31-10-96, examining several witnesses and sent a report dt. 31-12-96. With regard to the question whether the detenu was taken away by the S.I. of Police on 29-10-96, the finding was in the affirmative. With regard to the second point whether summoning of the detenu was justified, it was stated that the S.I. of Police should not have brought the detenu to the police station since he was not at all concerned with the transaction between the petitioner and Battula Nagamma and further the detenu was a old man of 70 years. With regard to the 3rd point the finding of the report was that the detenu was released on 30-10-96 and allowed to go, but the detenu left the police station on 31-10-96 and there was no need for keeping him to question about the, contents of the petition given by Battula Nagamma. Summing up the report states that the allegations in the telegram were prima facie, established.

In view of the above report, notice has been issued to the S.I. of Police, who was subsequently impleaded in person, as 4th respondent, as per the order of this Court dt 6-3-97. The 4th respondent filed additional counter-affidavit on 23-2-97, after perusal of the report dt. 31-12-96 and he produced the relevant records, as per the directions of this Court.

It was contended by the learned counsel for trim petitions that the detenu was forcibly taken away by the 4th respondent on 29-10-96 in the evening without any authority of law. No case was registered against him. Hence the 4th respondent is not empowered to summon the detenu to the police station. The detenu was illegally taken away by him on the complaint given by one Battula Nagamma that the petitioner, the son of the detenu, has borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The said matter is a civil dispute between B. Nagamma and the detenu''s son and the detenu was not aware of the same. However, the matter being a civil dispute, the police has no jurisdiction to interfere. The detenu was brought only to pressurise him to settle the civil matter in which his son was involved. He, therefore, contends that the action of the S.I., respondent 4, was wholly unlawful and the petitioner''s father''s fundamental right of freedom cannot be trampled by the S.I. of Police, by showing his power of office. Therefore, the, detenu was entitled for damages from the S.I. of Police, at least as a palliative, if not compensation for the wrong done by the S.I. of police.

However, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent vehemently contended that the findings in the report are not based upon evidence and the detenu was brought only oh 30-10-96 and he was released on the same day evening, to question him with regard to a petition filed by one Nagamma against the petitioner. It is further contended that the documentary evidence in the form of General Diary and the NC Register etc., revealed that the detenu was brought only on 30-10-96 and was released on the same day.

Finding that there was contradiction between the version of the S.I. of Police and the detenu, this Court ordered enquiry and accordingly the Superintendent of Police, CID (R), Hyderabad, has conducted an elaborate enquiry examining as many as nine witnesses including the detenu and the S.I. of Police and recorded their statements. With regard to the question whether the petitioner was payable to Battula Nagamma any amount, in the evidence recorded by the Supdt. of Police, the petitioner admitted that he has taken an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from B. Nagamma and, however, paid an interest of Rs. 5000/- after one year undertaking to pay the entire amount with interest by March, 1997, for which she agreed. She, however, started insisting upon immediate payment of the entire amount within three months thereafter. She has, therefore, filed a complaint before the police complaining against the petitioner. Thereupon, on 29-10-96 in the night when, the detenu was sleeping, the S.I. of Police came with his staff and took him away forcibly in a car to the police station. He adds when his son was not found in the house, he was taken away. The detenu clearly stated that he was kept in the police station upto 31-10-96, evening. He was fair enough to say that he was not put in lock-up nor was tortured nor was beaten. He further states that L.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 7 requested the S.I. of Police for this release, but the S.I. refused. They were also examined and they corroborated the evidence of the detenu. The evidence of L.Ws. 3 and 5 was further to the effect that they have also seen the S.I. taking the detenu in the evening of 29-10-96. Some other independent witnesses were also examined to corroborate the evidence of L.Ws. 1 to 5. L.W. 6, Battula Nagamma, however, stated that she approached the police on 30-10-96 in the morning by giving a complaint. She only stated that at the request of L.W. 7 the S.I. of Police had sent away the detenu from the police station premises. Thus, the evidence of L.W. 6 also corroborates the evidence of other witnesses, to the incident that the detenu was kept in the police station for the purpose of discharging the loan due to L.W. 6 by the petitioner and he was only sent on 30-10-96 in the evening. She is definitely interested in the S.I. of Police, since the S.I. was helping her in the discharge of her loan and she cannot be expected to support the case of the detenu that he was released on 31-10-96. The evidence of L.W. 7 was to the effect that he saw the detenu at the police station at 10-30 a.m. on 30-10-96 and came to know that he was brought there in connection with the loan borrowed by the petitioner from B. Nagamma. He thereafter convinced her not to press the complaint given to the police. Thereafter he asked the S.I. of Police to release the detenu, who told him about the dispute between the son of the detenu and B. Nagamma. He, however, stated that at his request the S.I. of police asked the detenu to go away on 30-10-96 in the evening. But the detenu remained there waiting for his son. The evidence of the S.I. was that he made an entry of the petition given by Battula Nagamma in the G.D. Register and deputed a constable to bring the detenu''s son and the detenu. However, when he returned to the police station in the evening he saw the detenu and after enquiry he realised that the dispute is of civil nature. He, therefore, made an entry in the G.D. and MC Registers and sent the detenu away in the presence of L.W. 7.

Relying upon the statements of the detenu and other witnesses, who have clearly stated that the S.I. of Police had taken into custody the detenu on 29-10-96 evening and rejecting entries in the G.D. and M.C. Registers, since they were made by the S.I. himself, it was found in the enquiry report of the Supdt. of Police, CID (R), that the detenu was taken into custody on 29-10-96 and was sent away only on 31-10-96 in the evening.

The evidence of the detenu, who is a old man, appears to be acceptable. He stated in his deposition that the S.I. has not tortured him and he was treated fairly. His evidence has been generally corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. The only dispute was whether he was released on 30-10-96 evening or on 31-10-96 evening. Though accepting the statement of the S.I. that the detenu was asked to go away on 30-10-96 evening, it must be remembered that the detenu is an old man and unless some help was given to him to go to his village, he has to remain in the police station itself till 31-10-96, till his son came to the police station and took him away. Thus his stay till 31-10-96 in the police station should be treated as unlawful custody by the S.I. of Police. It is, therefore, clear that the detenu was detained unauthorisedly in the police station by the 4th respondent without there being any crime registered against him. The said action of the 4th respondent is, therefore, without jurisdiction and contrary to the law. Admittedly the complaint given by Battula Nagamma relates to a civil dispute and the police has no power under the Code of Criminal Procedure or under any law to summon the detenu and keep him for 2 days for interrogation. If the S.I. of Police thought that the complaint disclose a cognizable offence, he should have registered the crime in accordance with S. 154(1), Cr. P.C. and taken up investigation according to S. 155, Cr. P.C. The 4th respondent has admittedly not registered the complaint. In the absence of such procedure, the summoning of the detenu is highly objectionable.

Having regard to the face that the writ petition was taken up on the allegation of illegal detention and in view of the direction of this Court the detenu was released, the prayer for relief of Habeas Corpus no longer survives.

However, since there has been denial of the right of personal liberty guaranteed under Art 21 of the Constitution on account of the illegal confinement of the detenu in the police station for two days and having regard to the circumstances, we are of the view that the detenu should he suitably compensated for the deprival of his personal liberty. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, can pass an order directing payment of money in the nature of compensation consequential upon deprivation of fundamental rights. In Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar and Another, it was held that the right to compensation was thus some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities of the State. It was observed that (para 10).

"One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Art. 21 secured, is to mulct its violaters in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner''s rights. It may have recourse against those officers."

This principle was followed in T. C. Pathak v. State of U.P., (1995) 6 SCC 357 and in Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana (1996) 1 SCC 711, directing the State to pay the compensation to the detenu for the unlawful detention.

In the instant case the detenu himself has stated that he was not tortured by the 4th respondent. A man of 70 years old, who has nothing to do with the complaint given, was brought to the police station and was confined for two days, unauthorisedly. We, therefore, direct the S.I. of Police, the 4th respondent herein, to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) to the detenu, within four weeks from today, by way of depositing the said amount of Rs. 6,000/- in a Nationalised Bank at vissannapet, Krishna District or in my nearby place, for a period of two years, enabling the detenu to draw the interest and handover the FDR to the detenu.

The writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Order accordingly.