Karnataka High Court Directs State Govt to Pay ₹3 Lakh To Lawyer Arrested Illegally By Police

The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to pay a compensation of Rs 3 lakh to a 23-year-old advocate, who was last month arrested illegally by the police. Justice M Nagaprasanna said that lawyer Kuldeep's arrest was contrary to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar. The court clarified that the compensation of Rs 3 Lakh will not come in the petitioner's way to claim additional compensation in a competent civil court in enforcement of a private law remedy."The arrest of the petitioner is held to be illegal ... and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of ARNESH KUMAR," said the court. The court also directed the Director General and Inspector General of Police to initiate a departmental enquiry against Suthesh K P, Sub inspector posted at the Punjlakatte Police Station and "his cohorts" or any other officer, after identifying those who had "indulged in the act of illegal arrest and alleged assault on the petitioner." “The departmental enquiry shall be initiated within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if not already initiated. If already initiated, it shall be concluded within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, suspension of the 4th respondent or any other officer shall not be revoked,” the court said,It added that the compensation amount to be paid by the state be recovered from the salary of the officers found guilty in the departmental enquiry.The court at the outset of the order said: “When the State or its agents fear the people, there is LIBERTY; when the people fear the State or its agents, there is TYRANNY”. Case Details Kuldeep enrolled himself on 02-11-2022 to the Karnataka State Bar Council. He owns a certain land which abuts an agricultural property of Bhavani and K.Vasantha Gowda, her husband. Gowda allegedly started obstructing Kuldeep's right to use the road leading to his agricultural property and was attempting to erect a permanent gate with an intention to prevent Kuldeep and his family from making use of the road that led to his agricultural property. He approached the civil court which vide its order dated December 1, 2022 granted temporary injunction against Gowda. The petitioner after securing certified copy of the injunction order communicated it to the Sub Inspector of Police, Punjalakatte Police Station on 02-12-2022 for action to protect his property. The police closed the complaint against Gowda holding it to be a land dispute. However, on the same day Bhavani registered a complaint against the petitioner at 8.15 p.m. on 02-12-2022, for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 379 of the IPC for alleged theft of the gate and criminal trespass. As per the petitioner, even before the FIR could be registered on her complaint, the police entered his house at 8.00 PM and caught hold of his neck and dragged him to the police station. The FIR was registered later against him. After the arrest, the petitioner applied for interim bail before the concerned court which granted the same. The court in its order noted the alleged ill-treatment meted out to the petitioner during arrest by the police and also said that intimation be sent to higher authorities for action against the Police Officer.Subsequent to release, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Punjalakatte Police Station against the Sub Inspector and other officers who had allegedly manhandled him. Though the complaint was filed before the Police on 09-12-2022, a case was not registered. The petitioner then approached the high court. The high court last month had asked an Additional Government Advocate to seek status of the complaint. Even then, the FIR on the complaint of the petitioner was not registered when the matter was next listed for hearing on 04-01-2023. On that day, the State sought a day’s time to seek instructions. The case was registered against the Sub Inspector and others on the same evening. The prosecution denied the beating of the petitioner and claimed it to be only imaginary. Seeking dismissal of the petition it said, “since the crime is now registered, apart from departmental enquiry, no further action need be taken against the 4th respondent [Sub Inspector] or others at the hands of this Court.” Findings The bench noted that charges levelled against the petitioner were under section 379 (Punishment for theft ) and 447 (Criminal trespass) of the Indian Penal Code. The offences can lead to an imprisonment of 3 years to the maximum, it observed. “It is trite law that no arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police to do so. The existence of power to arrest is one thing and justification for the said exercise is another. No arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bonafides of the...

Karnataka High Court Directs State Govt to Pay ₹3 Lakh To Lawyer Arrested Illegally By Police

Mustafa Plumber

Tags