Expressing deep frustration over serious police misconduct and the indifference in handling cases which are often dismissed or treated with callousness, the division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, ordered the State to pay Rs 1 Lakh as compensation to a woman from Mumbai for the unlawful arrest of her husband and rapped the police for their apathy in handling cases of citizens. Directing the State to give a compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the petitioner for her husband’s unlawful detention with a proviso that the amount could be recovered from the police officers responsible for the illegal arrest.

In the instant case a legal tussle ensued when the petitioner’s husband was arrested on allegations of illegal construction while the couple was in the process of repairing their home. In a bid to allegedly extract a bribe of Rs 20,000 from them, their neighbor filed a false complaint accusing them of illegal construction.

To register their complaint of harassment they went to Wadala TT Police Station, but their complaint was dismissed by the police claiming that it fell under the jurisdiction of another authority. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner’s husband was arrested along with five construction site workers.

Calling reference to a previous order of August 14, 2013, wherein allegations against police officers were routinely downplayed and citizens were either not believed or not treated with seriousness that is warranted, the bench, expressed their frustration on the police and ticked them off for the unlawful arrest of the petitioner’s husband.

While highlighting their serious concerns over the misconduct the bench observed, “We had already expressed our anguish in no uncertain words in our order dated 14/08/2013, specifically by recording that the allegations against the police officers are taken very lightly and casually, and the citizens are not believed as a matter of course. Here is a classic example’’, noted the court.

It came to be the case that the Respondent, Assistant Police Inspector(API), who handled this complaint allegedly demanded Rs 12,000 for release of the petitioner’s husband and an additional Rs 1,200 for each worker to be free from custody. After the workers paid their fines, they were released, but the husband continued to be in custody until he was granted bail. It was also claimed that the API asked the petitioner initially to pay an amount of Rs 10,000 to put a lid over the case completely.

Defending their action the police quoted the Maharashtra Police Act, which prohibits unauthorized construction that could endanger public safety. But the court deferred and disagreed with their justification, stating that while the police may have had the power to arrest, it was not obligatory in this case. The bench stated, "Even if assuming that there was power of arrest, it did not make it imperative for a police officer to effect the arrest’’ emphasizing that alternative remedies should have been explored before resorting to arrest, the court added.

Expressing their strong dissatisfaction with the disciplinary proceedings against the API, the court remarked that despite their orders directing a thorough inquiry into police’s actions, only a minor fine of Rs 2000 was imposed on him. The court took strong exceptions to and rapped the authorities for their failure not only to investigate the legal justification for his actions but primarily focusing solely only on his failure to file an affidavit in a previous court order.

“We are astonished by the approach of the Respondent authorities’’ noted the bench, while highlighting the failure of the authorities to address the crucial and core issue of his misconduct. “We fail to make out as to whether the respondent authorities have failed to understand the implications of the directions issued by this court or despite understanding, the same has been ignored by passing the impugned order and imposing fine upon Mr Jadhav only for the act of non-filing of the affidavit in compliance with our order’’, noted the court calling attention to the serious oversight in the disciplinary process.

Ruling that the arrest was an abuse of police power and a misuse of authority, the court observed that their actions caused unnecessary suffering to the petitioner. Asserting that despite the court’s clear directions, no meaningful action had been taken against the API.

The court also pressed upon the need for higher authorities to ensure compliance with its directives, noting that, “We leave it to the good conscience of the higher-ups in the police department to ensure compliance of our orders dated 14.08.2013, if it is permissible and possible after more than a decade.’’

Case Details- Ratna Chandrakant Vannam & Anr. V. Tukaram k.Jadhav

Advocate for the Petitioner- Suvidha Patil.

Advocate for the Respondent- DJ Haldankar, A.P.P.