Click the Play button to listen to article

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that “an order passed by the Chairperson of the State Police Complaints Authority alone cannot be treated as an order passed by the Authority”. Holding that as per the scheme of the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007, the Authority consists of the Chairperson and four other members and held that an order passed by the Chairperson alone was “illegal per se and deserves to be quashed on this ground alone”. Consequently, holding the above it quashed the disciplinary action initiated against a police officer pursuant to such order.

Justice Pankaj Purohit was hearing a writ petition filed by a police officer, who challenged an order dated June 30, 2011 passed by the State Police Complaints Authority and the consequential order issued on September 9, 2012. The latter order initiated action against him pursuant to the findings of the Police Complaints Authority. 

The officer was posted as Sub-Inspector In-charge of Lakhi Bagh Chowki, Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun in 2010. Following an FIR registered against two accused under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, the investigation was entrusted to him. After recording the victim's statement, conducting a site visit and preparing the case diary, he arrested the accused on May 26, 2010 and subsequently submitted chargesheets against them. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. 

One of the accused subsequently complained to the State Police Complaints Authority, alleging, among other things, that his arrest had been made in an unconstitutional manner. The Authority's Chairperson thereafter passed the impugned order dated June 30, 2011, holding that Section 506 IPC was non-cognizable and bailable and that the petitioner-officer had committed misconduct by making the arrest. The order directed the police authorities to take suitable action against him. A consequential show-cause notice was subsequently issued to him, leading to the present writ petition. 

The petitioner- officer primarily argued on the issue of composition of the Authority. It was submitted that Section 64 of the Uttarakhand Police Act defines the State Police Complaints Authority as consisting of a Chairperson and a maximum of four other members, and that the impugned order had been passed only by the Chairperson without the signature of any other member. Reliance was placed on the coordinate Bench judgment in M/s Dasauni v. State of Uttarakhand, where an order passed by the Chairperson alone had been held to be “non est in the eyes of law.” 

He further challenged the jurisdiction of the State Police Complaints Authority, contending that the Authority could not adjudicate upon matters relating to an investigation or proceedings pending before the criminal court. It was also argued that the petitioner had merely discharged the duties assigned to him by the Station Officer and that the arrest was made after due investigation and recording of evidence. 

Conversely, counsel for the respondent, one of the two accused in the other case, defended the complaint, submitting that the petitioner had illegally arrested him for offences which were bailable and non-cognizable. On the question of the Authority's composition, it was argued that Sections 64 and 65 prescribe a maximum of five members but do not prescribe a minimum number or quorum. It was therefore contended that the argument of the petitioner that complaint ought to have been heard by the Authority consisting of five members is unsustainable.

Importantly, the Court found that the material placed on record by the State itself established that on June 30, 2011, the State Police Complaints Authority had five working members, including the Chairperson. The State's instructions dated July 25, 2026 specifically recorded the Chairperson and four other members as being appointed to the Authority during the relevant period. 

Hearing the matter, the Court held that “this Court is of the view that it is hard to fathom the reason as to why only the chairperson passed the impugned order. As per Section 64 and 65 of the Uttarakhand Police Act of 2007, there is no doubt that the State Police Complaint Authority consists of Chairperson and four other members and one of the independent members, the Chairperson shall be appointed by the State Government. Thus, in all five members shall be there including chairperson.

Thus, the order passed by Chairperson alone cannot be said to be passed by the Authority. It is illegal per se and deserves to be quashed only on this sole ground.

Importantly, the Court rejected the respondent's argument holding that “the argument of learned counsel for respondent No.4 regarding the fact that there is no quorum specified for functioning of the police complaints authority also holds no water as then what is the use of appointing 5 members in the complaints authority. This finding of the court is also supported by the case of M/s Dasauni (Supra), wherein, it has been categorically held by a co-ordinate bench of this court that when there are multiple members in the police complaints authority the order passed by Chairperson only is non est in the eyes of law”.

Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, thus setting aside the orders dated June 30, 2011 passed by the State Police Complaints Authority and the consequential order dated September 9, 2012.

Case: Kamal Kumar Lunthi Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. [Writ Petition Service Single No.1355 of 2012 ]

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Full View
Tags: