NIRMAL KUMAR BHAWARLAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside Crime Nos.106/2000, 77/2000, 88/2000 and 95/2000, registered against the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing a judicial enquiry to be initiated in respect of the illegal detention of the petitioner by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in utter violation of the directions of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1997 S.C. 610). The petitioner prays for awarding of damages/ compensation of Rs.2 Lacs and more for the indignity and the loss of business suffered by the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for directing respondent No.5 to repay an amount of Rs.4200/- incurred by the petitioner on a private vehicle used by the police for transporting the petitioner from the place of his arrest to the police station and vice versa. The petitioner also prays for directing respondent No.6 to refund an amount of Rs.1950/- incurred by the petitioner for similar purpose.

(2.) AT the outset, it is brought to our notice that respondent No.5 has expired during the pendency of this petition. In that light of the matter, the petition would stand dismissed as abated as against respondent No.5.

(3.) MR. B.R. Warma, learned counsel for the petitioner, while highlighting the various breaches committed by the respondents/ authorities in respect of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu's case (supra), has invited our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Ankush Ghinabaji Dhanvijay, Special Inspector General of Police, Nasik Range, Nasik, dated 7.6.2004. In the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply, at paragraph No.2, it is stated that pursuant to the directions given by this Court in this Writ Petition, dated 22.4.2003, the deponent had ordered a detailed enquiry to be conducted through the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon. During the enquiry conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon regarding the arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.106/2000, registered by the Dharangaon Police Station and Crime No.32/2000 registered by the Marwad Police Station, it was revealed that the police officers had indeed committed breach of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu's case. The breach committed by the police officers are highlighted in the aforesaid paragraphs and the breach committed is in respect of Dharangaon Police Station not informing a friend or relative of the petitioner in respect of the arrest of the petitioner. Intimation was given to the brother of the petitioner Kailash on telephone, but no written intimation either by post or telegram was given. Further breach which is admitted is that the investigating officer, while preparing the seizure memo, had not obtained the signature of a member of the family of the petitioner nor had he associated respectable persons of his locality. The investigating officer had also failed to obtain the counter signature of the petitioner on the seizure memo. The witnesses were not local residents, but were residents of Jalgaon. The affidavit-in-reply further discloses that the investigating officer had committed certain administrative lapses. The affidavit-in-reply further discloses that the investigating officer had failed to use official vehicle and had used a private vehicle without obtaining permission of the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon and had failed to submit a bill for the fuel for reimbursement. Neither help of the local police of Gujarat State was sought while effecting the arrest nor were the local police were informed about the arrest of the petitioner. The affidavit-in-reply further discloses that certain administrative action was proposed to be initiated against the erring police officers. The administrative action was that A.P.I. More, Abasaheb Kulat, the then P.S.I. of Marwad Police Station, Head Constable P.R. Patil of Marwad Police Station are likely to be proceeded against departmentally. Proposals are being sent to the competent Superintendent of Police recommending departmental proceedings against the police officers. The affidavit-in-reply at paragraphs 6 and 7 also deals with the various steps taken for strict compliance of the directives of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu's case.