June 25, 2018:

Accusing Delhi Police of humiliation and mental trauma, an Uttarakhand Cop has moved Delhi HC seeking around Rs 70 Lakhs as Compensation.

Delhi HC Judge, Justice Rajiv Shakdher heard plea of  Cop Vivek Chaudhary, who used to serve in Uttarakhand Police with an unblemished record, till he was implicated in a case of fake currency notes by Delhi Police’s Special Cell and immediately after his arrest in 2007, his pictures were published in the print and electronic media, dubbing him as an anti-national.

After being acquitted by a Court following a full trial, Chaudhary now wants Police to compensate him for the distress and agony he underwent during a year behind bars.

Advocate appearing on behalf of Uttarakhand Cop stated that how his right to reputation and to live with dignity was violated by Delhi Police’s Special Cell, who declared him kingpin of a fake currency racket, leading to loss of his job from the police force, acute mental agony and harassment to his family and ostracism from the society.

Siddiqui argued that Rights of his client, enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution, were trampled upon due to the “unwarranted incarceration, hardships, harassment, mental-physical agony and social ostracism suffered on account of publicising his pictures as an anti-national in the electronic and the print media and on account of false implication by officials of Delhi Police’s Special Cell.”

Vivek Chaudhary submitted before HC that even Trial Court recorded lapses on part of prosecution.

The Petition further states that,“The illegal acts of Delhi Police by falsely implicating the petitioner and causing physical and mental harassment to him were clearly violative of the law and thus caused serious infraction of Article 21 of Constitution as the petitioner’s right to reputation and liberty was impinged by keeping him behind bars and circulating his pictures as an anti-national”.

Delhi Police countered Uttarakhand Cops arguments stating that by Trial Court judgment and argued that Chaudhary in fact received benefit of doubt, and not an honourable acquittal.

Source TOI

Picture Source :