Recently, the Allahabad High Court held that a citizen's illegal detention by the police on the basis of a domestic violence complaint amounted to a blatant violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petition concerned allegations that the Petitioner had been unlawfully confined in a police lockup for nearly 24 hours without any lawful authority. While awarding monetary compensation, the Court emphasised that police officials cannot exercise coercive powers beyond the limits prescribed by law and that personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 cannot be compromised through arbitrary action.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a writ petition alleging that the Petitioner was forcibly taken from his residence and confined in a police lockup for nearly 24 hours on the basis of a domestic violence complaint, despite there being no cognizable offence warranting such action. The Petitioner contended that he was detained without lawful authority and that the subsequent inquiry conducted by the police failed to examine material witnesses who could substantiate his allegations. During the proceedings, it also emerged that preventive proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had been initiated after the alleged detention. The Petitioner therefore approached the High Court challenging the legality of his detention, the fairness of the inquiry, and the validity of the proceedings initiated against him.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that he was forcibly taken from his residence and illegally detained in a police lockup despite the absence of any criminal case against him. The Counsel further submitted that the inquiry conducted into his allegations was flawed as material witnesses were not examined. The Petitioner contended that the subsequent proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated merely to justify the illegal detention and that the complaint, at best, disclosed a domestic dispute that could not lawfully warrant police custody.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent submitted that a complaint had been received concerning a domestic dispute involving the Petitioner and that a compromise was eventually reached between the parties. The police officer concerned relied upon a General Diary entry to contend that both sides had voluntarily appeared before the police and resolved their differences. The State also referred to the preventive proceedings initiated under Sections 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C. However, the Additional District Magistrate candidly acknowledged before the Court that the domestic nature of the dispute had not been considered when notice was issued and tendered an unconditional apology for the oversight.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar and Justice J.J. Munir observed that the proceedings initiated under Sections 107/116 of the Cr.P.C. were wholly misplaced because the dispute in question was essentially domestic in nature and had no connection with public peace or public tranquillity. The Bench noted that preventive proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Cr.P.C. are intended to address situations involving breach of public order and cannot be invoked to deal with family disputes or allegations of domestic violence. Referring to the State's own affidavit, the Court recorded that the authority concerned had admitted the oversight and tendered an unconditional apology. The Court emphasised that what was reported to the police, at best, disclosed a domestic dispute and did not furnish any legal basis for initiating proceedings aimed at preserving public tranquillity.
The Bench observed that the allegations regarding the Petitioner's illegal detention stood virtually admitted because the concerned police officer failed to specifically deny the assertions made in the writ petition. The Bench found that the response filed by the officer merely attempted a tacit denial while avoiding a direct answer to the allegations of forcible detention. The Court held that in the face of detailed and specific pleadings alleging illegal confinement, such evasive pleadings could not be accepted. It therefore concluded that the fact of the Petitioner's detention in police custody stood established on the basis of the material before it.
The Court further observed that the version put forward by the police officer regarding a voluntary compromise between the parties was inherently improbable and failed to inspire confidence. The Bench remarked that it was unrealistic to believe that a person accused in a domestic violence complaint would voluntarily walk into a police outpost to negotiate a settlement. Highlighting the coercive nature of police authority, the Court observed that a police officer cannot be equated with a community elder or mediator whose intervention is voluntarily sought by disputing parties. The Court therefore found a significant gap in the explanation offered by the police regarding the circumstances under which the Petitioner came to the police station and executed a compromise.
The Bench held that the police had no authority to interfere in a matter that, according to the material on record, was merely a domestic violence dispute. The Bench noted that if the complaint indeed related to domestic violence, the complainant had an appropriate statutory remedy under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court found that the police officer acted beyond the scope of his lawful powers by taking coercive action in the absence of any cognizable offence. It therefore concluded that the Petitioner's detention was not backed by any legal authority and amounted to an impermissible exercise of police power.
The Court emphasised that the petition involved a direct challenge to the Petitioner's fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Bench found that the Petitioner had been dragged from his residence, taken into custody, and confined in a police lockup without any lawful justification. The Court further observed that the subsequent proceedings under Sections 107/116 of the Cr.P.C. appeared to have been initiated merely to create a semblance of legality around the earlier detention. Viewing the matter as a serious constitutional violation, the Court held that the Petitioner's liberty had been curtailed in a manner wholly inconsistent with the guarantees contained in Article 21.
The decision of the Court:
Allowing the writ petition, the Court held that the Petitioner had been illegally deprived of his liberty by a police officer acting under the colour of State authority. The Court directed the State to pay ad hoc compensation of ₹25,000 along with costs of ₹10,000 within thirty days and granted liberty to recover the amount from the erring police officer. The Court also clarified that the Petitioner would remain free to pursue a regular civil action for damages.
Case Title: Matambar Mishra Vs. The State of U.P. and Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 3807 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Justice J.J. Munir, Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Kumar
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Mata Achal Mishra, Adv. Vinay Mishra
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
