Karnataka High Court Directs State Govt to Pay ₹3 Lakh To Lawyer Arrested Illegally By 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 complaint/information, as any arrest would deny a person of his liberty, which is a very serious matter, as arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and casts a scar forever," it added.

The court said if the case is considered on the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, what would unmistakably emerge is the personal liberty of the petitioner was snatched away by the Sub Inspector "and his cohorts in a brutal manner without even a warrant of arrest or even registration of an FIR.”

“The records would reveal that he has been assaulted and tortured throughout his travel in the jeep and has later been threatened to give evidence against himself, all of which cannot but be termed to be grossly illegal and blatantly high handed. The power of arrest of an accused is misused and abused in the case at hand," said the bench.

Referring to the judgement of the Apex court in the case of SUBE SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA (2006) 3 SCC 178, wherein the court had said the attitude to arrest and then proceed with the rest is despicable and has become a handy tool to police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive, the bench said, “observations of the Apex Court are apt to be applied in the case at hand. The arrest of the petitioner has been in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner was compelled to face humiliation.”

The court said the police can in no circumstance flout the law with such brazen proclivity. 

“Notwithstanding the petitioner being an Advocate, he is illegally detained and assaulted, even after bringing it to the notice of the police that he is an Advocate, an Officer of the Court. If an Advocate could be treated in the manner of what he has been meted out in the case at hand, a common man will not be able to bear the brunt of repetition of such treatment," the bench observed further.

The court also said the perpetrators of such illegality and violators of law cannot be left off the hook. "They must be proceeded against both in a departmental inquiry, to fix accountability, and under the criminal law to deter any such iteration," it added.

Case Title: Kuldeep And State of Karnataka & Others

Case no: WRIT PETITION No.24832 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 21

Date of Order: 19th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

Appearance: Senior Advocate P.P.Hegde for Advocate Ganapathi Bhat for petitioner.

AGA M.Vinod Kumar for respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment