NIRAJ RAMESH JARIWALA Vs. MAHADEO PANDURANG NIKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one more glaring case of gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that also at the hands of the Police machinery which is supposed to be protector of common man. The victims are the second and third Petitioners who are senior citizens.

(2.) We may note here that by an order dated 31 st October, 2012, we directed that the Writ Petition shall be heard and disposed of finally. This Court noted in the said order that what survives for consideration is the prayer Clauses (b) and (d) which concern illegal detention of the second and third Petitioners. The first Petitioner and the third Respondents are husband and wife. The Second and third Petitioners are parents of the first Petitioner. On 29 th November, 2011, at the instance of the third Respondent, the first Information Report was registered with Navghar Police Station, Mumbai, complaining about the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code against the Petitioners. As far as the arrest of the Second and third Petitioners is concerned, following are the admitted facts which are borne out from the record.

(3.) We may note here that the order dated 19 th June 2012 of this Court records that the investigation of the case has been transferred to Vikhroli Police Station and, therefore, the notice was issued only as regards the prayer clauses (b) to (d). The prayer (b) is for issuing direction to take action against the first Respondent for noncompliance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, 1997 1 SCC 416. Prayer (c) is for grant of compensation on account of illegal arrest. Prayer (d) is for directing the fourth Respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the first Respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners pointed out that going by the record, the first Respondent took the second and third Petitioners into the custody at 20.50 on 2 nd December 2011 at Aurangabad. The first Respondent brought them to Navghar Police Station at 20.20 on 3 rd December 2011. However, till 8.10 on 4 th December 2011, they were not shown as arrested though they were in custody continuously from 20.50 on 2 nd December 2011. It is urged that this action is patently illegal and is in violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 57 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as "the CRPC"). He pointed out various allegations made in the Petition as regards inhuman treatment meted out to the second and third Petitioners in the onward journey from Aurangabad to Navghar Police Station at Mulund. He pointed out that both the second and third Petitioners were senior citizens on the relevant date. His submission is that apart from initiating action in accordance with law, in view of gross violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu and in view of violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are entitled to substantial amount by way of compensation.