Police Assume Abuses Will Go Unnoticed: Allahabad HC Awards 25K Compensation To Man Over 24-Hour Illegal Detention

With this scathing observation, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar awarded an ad-hoc compensation of Rs. 25,000 to a man who was illegally detained in police custody (lockup) for 24 hours over a mere domestic dispute.

"…where a citizen gets up to enforce his right and comes forward to this Court, it becomes our duty to enforce what is already a declared right of his under the Constitution, the laws, the State Government policy and our interpretation thereof. After all, there are officers all around who believe that the violation would go unnoticed, more often than not", the bench remarked in its 16-page order.

Briefly put, on November 26, 2022, Prayagraj resident and petitioner (Matambar Mishra) returned home from his agricultural fields. That is when Sub-Inspector Surya Prakash Dubey, then-in-charge of a Police Outpost, entered his house and dragged him out, dressed only in a lungi and kurta.

Without being informed of any reason, Mishra was taken to a police station and locked up for 24 hours and during his detention, the SI (Dubey) demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- as price to set him free.

The entire police action was initiated based on a domestic violence complaint filed by the petitioner's brother's daughter-in-law, a matter in which no cognizable offence was registered.

Before the High Court, the SI defended his actions, contending that the petitioner had voluntarily approached him in the police outpost to resolve the dispute through mutual compromise.

The Bench, however, rejected this defence, noting that "Dubey (SI) after all was not a spiritual Guru, a Panch Parmeshwar or a community leader", to whom the petitioner and his daughter-in-law would voluntarily turn to submit their dispute for guidance and amicable settlement.

The bench added that, as a police officer, he was feared because he possessed the coercive authority of the State, and it was 'impossible' that the petitioner would voluntarily approach him to enter into a compromise.

Additionally, as a cover for the illegal confinement, the police had belatedly initiated proceedings against Mishra under Sections 107 and 116 CrPC two days after releasing him from illegal custody.

The bench took strong exception to the same, as it observed that these proceedings are designed essentially to preserve public peace and tranquillity, and can never be invoked for a private case of domestic violence.

The bench added that these proceedings were a measure taken “out of panic to raise a semblance of defence” for all that SI-Dubey had done to the petitioner.

The Additional District Magistrate also tendered an unconditional apology to the Court for inadvertently issuing the notices without considering the domestic nature of the dispute.

Thus, holding that the SI had recklessly violated the petitioner's fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the bench deliberated about the appropriate measure to be taken in such cases.

It relied upon the Delhi High Court's judgment in Pankaj Kumar Sharma v Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors, wherein ₹50,000 compensation was awarded to a man who was illegally detained by the Delhi Police for half an hour.

In this case, it was also observed that an administrative punishment of a punishment of censure, which is not likely to have any effect on the career of the police officers, will not be a sufficient deterrent to the officer, and for such cases, where a person has been deprived of his liberty, without following the due procedure of law, requires monetary recompense.

Interestingly, in the present matter, the petitioner had merely sought a direction for an inquiry against the SI by a superior officer and did not formally seek monetary damages.

However, the High Court invoked its inherent power to mould the relief by observing that the mere absence of a formal prayer would not deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to remedy a brazen violation of a fundamental right.

Therefore, relying on the Uttar Pradesh State Government policy of 2021, which mandates Rs. 25,000 in compensation for illegal police detention, the Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the State to pay the amount to the petitioner within 30 days.

Furthermore, the Court awarded Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs.

The bench also granted liberty to the state that, upon payment of the compensation and costs awarded to the petitioner, the same may be recovered from the erring police official in whatever manner they deem appropriate, including by deducting it from his remuneration.

The bench further clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to bring a regular suit for damages and establish his claim before a Court of competent jurisdiction regarding his illegal detention, and that any compensation, if awarded, shall take into account the ad hoc compensation already granted.