BHAGVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceeding is fled for giving direction to the respondent No.1 to start departmental action of respondent Nos.2,3,5 and 6 in respect of CR No.13/2015 registered with Sonkhed Police Station, District Nanded. Direction is claimed against the respondents to see that compensation is paid for the action taken against the petitioner in CR No.13/2015. In the past relief was also claimed for quashing of the order made by the State Human Rights Commission in a proceeding which was fled by the present petitioner. The Human Rights Commission has rejected the complaint and the matter is closed. Subsequently this relief came to be deleted.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that he is in business of selling iron in village Sonkhed. His marriage with respondent No.4 took place on 20-5-2005. Parties are Hindus. It is his contention that there was some dispute between him and his wife and due to that dispute respondent No.4 left his company and she started living with her parents in Nanded. It is his contention that he tried to bring back his wife but he failed in that attempt and then he was required to fle proceeding for divorce against her in Civil Court Senior Division Kandhar. The present petition came to be fled on 3-9-2018.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.5 is working as Constable in Sonkhed Police Station and as respondent No.4 is her sister she is misusing her post. It is contended that he had given complaint against respondent No.5 on 15-9-2014 that she had tried to kidnap his daughter who was in his custody but no action is taken against respondent No.5 by her superior oficers. It is contended that when his wife, respondent No.4 fled complaint against him crime, CR No.13/2015 came to be registered for ofences punishable under sections 498-A, 504, 506 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that in the said crime application was made by police to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Loha for permission to arrest the accused but the Magistrate had expressed that there was no need of permission and it was open to police to make arrest if the conditions laid down in section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are complied with. It is contended that on 18-5-2015 respondent No.3 arrested the petitioner and his relatives and they were produced before Judicial Magistrate Loha. It is contended that the Judicial Magistrate asked police to release the petitioner and his relatives forthwith as the procedure necessary for efecting arrest was not followed. It is contended that the procedure given in section 41 of the Cr.P.C. and the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2014 AIR(SC) 2756 were not followed. It is contended that arrest of the petitioner was illegal and so the action needs to be taken against the police oficers and compensation needs to be paid to the petitioner.