Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/7371/2015 on 29 October, 2021
GAHC010026722015
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
WP(C) No. 7371/2015
Shri Naba Jyoti Hazarika,
S/O Shri Puspendra Nath Hazarika,
resident of House No.4, Pub Saraniya,
near Railway line Chandmari, Guwahati-3,
Distrct-Kamrup(Metro), Assam.
......Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
represented by the Commissioner & Secretary,
Government of Assam, Home & Political Department,
Dispur, Guwahati-6,
District-Kamrup(M), Assam.
2. The Director General of Police,
Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati-7, District-Kamrup(M),
Assam.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate,
Guwahati City, Panbazar, Guwahati-1,
District-Kamrup(M), Assam.
4. Shri Satindra Singh, Officer-in-Charge,
Chandrapur Police Station, Chandrapur,
Guwahati-781150, District-Kamrup(M), Assam.
5. Shri Rajen Abang,
resident of Hajongbari, Chandrapur,
Guwahati, District-Kamrup(M), Assam, Pin-781150.
6. Shri Dilip Das,
resident of Bank Colony, Chandrapurtiniali,
WP(C) 7371/2015 Page - 1 of 4
Chandrapur, District-Kamrup(M), Assam,
Pin-781150.
......Respondents.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
For the Petitioner: Mr. J. Das,
Ms. J. Bhuyan,
Mr. A.K. Das. ......Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Sr. GA, Assam,
Mr. U.B. Sarma,
Mr. S. Hussain,
Md. K. Ali,
Mr. D. Adhikary,
Mr. H.C. Sarma,
Mr. L. Sarma. ......Advocates.
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 29th October, 2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
[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 No.5 and 6.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the alleged illegal action
WP(C) 7371/2015 Page - 2 of 4
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. 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
WP(C) 7371/2015 Page - 3 of 4
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 closing 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.
Sd/- Malasri Nandi Sd/- N. Kotiswar Singh
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
WP(C) 7371/2015 Page - 4 of 4
