G PICHESWARA RAO Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant proceeding has been started treating the telegram by G. Picheswara Rao to the Chief Justice as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and taken up by the Legal Services Authority. Telegram contained the following information : "Respected Lordship I would like to bring to your kind notice that the Nuzvid Rural Police Sub-Inspector high handedly taken away my father, sister-in-law on 1-8-96, 8 a.m. The police did not bring any Mahila Constable (.) The Sub-Inspector high-handedly caught hold my sister-in-law and abused her in filthy language (.) The police interfered in civil matter (.) He wrongfully detained our people in Nuzvid Rural Police Station (.) The Sub-Inspector openly declaring that he will foist a false case against them (.) Soon after the incident I rushed to Vijayawada to in form my relatives (.) The police have no authority to interfere in civil matter (.) Please treat this telegram as writ and do justice in the matter (.) G. PICHESWARY RAO." Under the scheme evolved by the Legal Services Authority of the State, when allegations are specifically made of wrongful detention at the Police Station, the Court got a preliminary enquiry about any person, as alleged, having been detained at the Police Station and on 3-8-1996, II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam, visited the concerned Police Station. The Magistrate has reported as follows :- "On inspection, I found one person in one cell. I asked him about his particulars. He informed to me that his name is Rudrapogu Wilson s/o Rayanna, aged about 34 years, resident of Guntur. In another cell the properties are kept. Except the said person, Rudrapogu Wilson, there is no other person in the said cell when I visited the Police Station. Meanwhile, S.I. of Police and Circle Inspector of Police came there. I instructed them to produce the General Diary maintained in the Police Station to find out further details in the matter. On verification of the G.D., I found a crime was registered against G. Pitcheswara Rao and 13 others in Cr. No. 75/96 under Sections 447, 506 and under Section 225, I.P.C. on 18-7-92 at 2.00 p.m G. Pitcheswara Rao figured as accused No. 4 as per the F.I.R. The complaint was given by one Sri G. Mohana Krishna. Another case in Cr. No. 77/96 is also registered on 24-7-1996 at 3.30 p.m. under Sections 447, 506 r/w. 34, I.P.C. against G. Venkateswara Rao and others. On verification of the G.D. entries, I found no persons are taken into custody in connection with the said two crimes. At about 5.45 p.m., the Circle Inspector of Police introduced a person stating that he is G. Pitcheswara Rao. On my oral enquiry, the said person informed me that his name is G. Pitcheswara Rao. I asked the said Pitcheswara Rao whether his father and sister-in-law are detained in the Police Station, he informed that they were called to the Police Station on 1-8-1996 and sent them after some time without effecting their arrest. Then, I instructed G. Pitcheswara Rao to wait outside the Police Station as to enable me to record his statement since I was verifying the G.D. entries. By the time I completed the verification of the G.D. entries, and came out of the Police Station, the said person G. Pitcheswara Rao was not available. I waited for about one hour, thinking that the said person G. Pitcheswara Rao, may come back. However, he did not return till about 7.00 p.m. I have collected copies of the F.I.Rs. in the said two crimes from the Police. After completing the inspection, I returned back to Machilipatnam. I submit that on inspection of the Nuzvid Rural Police Station of Krishna District at 5.15 p.m. on 2-8-1996, I found no person either father or sister-in-law of G. Pitcheswara Rao in the custody of the Police." G. Pitcheswara Rao sent a letter addressed to the Chief Justice informing about his presence at the Police Station, the Magistrate also has noted his presence, and stated as follows : "Today i.e., 2-8-1996 at about 4.00 p.m., one Magistrate came to the Police Station and I informed to the Magistrate that the police people are harassing my family members and I narrated the situation what happened on 1-8-1996 at my village. The Hon'ble Magistrate questioned me that any one of my relatives are in police station. I informed to the Magistrate that the police released my father and my sister-in-law in the evening on 1-8-96. The Circle Inspector also informed the same before the Magistrate. The police people had shown some papers to the Hon'ble Magistrate. In the discussions, I came to know that the police registered one false case against me and my family members. Only to escape from the law, they registered that false case. The police neither informed about the F.I.R., nor arrested me and my family members." Pitcheswara Rao has also alleged :- "They have not arrested me and my family members. Simply to escape from the law, the police might have taken a false complaint against us to show that they are not interfering in civil matters. The police interfered in civil matter and to escape from the law, they have shown the F.I.R. to the Hon'ble Magistrate. Before the Hon'ble Magistrate, the Circle Inspector informed me openly 'WAIT SOME TIME, I WILL SEE YOUR END', 'MEEKU EE KALALU KOODA VUNNAYAA'. The Hon'ble Magistrate was simply sitting in Sub-Inspector's Chair and the Hon'ble Magistrate was silent. The Hon'ble Magistrate was allowed to record my statement. Then, immediately I got fear and I left the police station. I bring to your kind notice Lordship, if really anything happens, the police would have arrested me long ago. Even today also they have not arrested me, it clearly shows only to escape from the law, they registered that false complaint to show to the Hon'ble Magistrate that they are not interfering in civil matters." He has, by a subsequent letter sent by Registered Post, corrected the statement, "the Hon'ble Magistrate was allowed to record my statement" to read as follows, "the Hon'ble Magistrate did not record my statement". The sister-in-law of the petitioner-Gogineni Rajini and the father of the petitioner-Gogineni Venkateswara Rao have filed affidavits before this Court stating, inter alia, as follows : "On 1/08/1996, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police Station, Krishna District came to our house in village with a van and with about 10 policemen some with uniform and some without uniform. No lady constable followed them. All of them entered my house. They abused me and my father-in-law with filthy language. They have also dragged me and my father-in-law into the Police van. The Sub-Inspector by holding my hands dragged me into the police van. I requested the Police Sub-Inspector to allow me to take my nine months old baby or allow me to give her milk. The police made both of us to sit in the van and took us to Nuzvid Police Station. They kept us till 7.00 p.m. We are not allowed to take any food and they did not give any food. When I questioned as to why we were brought to the Police Station, the police had abused us and warned us that we should keep quiet. At 7.00 p.m., they asked us to go away and send my brother-in-law to the Police Station tomorrow i.e. 2-8-1996." (Extracted from the affidavit of Gogineni Rajini). "On 1/08/1996, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police Station, Krishna Dist. came to our house in village with a van and with about 10 (ten) policemen some with uniform and some without uniform. All of them entered my house. They did not disclose as to why they came. They forcibly dragged me into the Police van. They abused me in filthy language. They have also dragged my daughter-in-law by holding her hands into the Police van. Her protest and request to allow her to take her nine months old baby or allow her to give her milk. They made both of us to sit in the van and took us to Nuzvid Police Station. They kept us till 7.00 p.m. We were not allowed to take any food, they did not give any food, when I questioned as to why we were brought to the Police Station, the Police had abused us and warned that we should keep quiet. At 7.00 p.m., they asked us to go away and send my son tomorrow i.e., 2-8-1996." (extracted from the affidavit of Gogineni Venkateswara Rao) In the first counter-affidavit, K. Dharmender, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police Station, has stated that one Garapati Mohana Krishna lodged a complaint on 18-7-1996 at 14.00 Hours stating that the alleged detenus along with 11 others trespassed into their palm oil plantation cultivated land in Survey No. 79/1, 79/2 and 79/3 of Marsapudi village, Nuzvid Mandal against the court order in I.A. No. 558/1996 in O.S. No. 43/1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nuzvid, and abused and threatened the complainant and the persons working in the field. The said complaint was registered in Crime No. 75/1996 under Ss. 447, 506 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code of Nuzvid Rural Police Station. Having taken up investigation, he called the alleged detenus to the Police Station on 1-8-1996 at 8.00 a.m. The other persons involved in the offence were not available in Marsapudi village and added : "The alleged detenus came to the Police Station, Nuzvid voluntarily and stated that the matter relates to civil dispute regarding property matter between Garapati Mohana Krishna and Garapati Ananda, who are brothers, and that Garapati Ananda is the son-in-law, of Gogineni Venkateswara Rao, the alleged detenu herein. After enquiry as no prima facie case was made out and the other persons involved in the offence are yet to be examined, the alleged detenus were sent away on the same day at 9.30 A.M." He has stated in the affidavit that the alleged detenus were not confined in the Police Station either on 1-8-1996 or on any other subsequent date and that Crime No. 75/1996 is still under investigation. He has denied, however, the allegation that the police had taken the petitioner's father and sister-in-law on 1-8-1996 at 8.00 A.M. in a high-handed manner and reiterated that they had come to the Police Station voluntarily on the request made by the police as well as the allegation that he caught hold of the sister-in-law of the petitioner and abused her in filthy language. He has stated : "I am only investigating into the matter on the complaint lodged by one Mr. Garapati Mohana Krishna. The allegation that I openly declared that I will foist a false case against the alleged detenus is not correct. It is true that the police have no authority to interfere in civil matter but the police have to investigate into the matter if any complaint is lodged by person against anybody as to truth or otherwise of the complaint." In the additional Counter-affidavit, he has stated as follows :- "....... the alleged detenus are accused Nos. 3 and A-11 in Crime No. 75/96 under Sections 447, 506 and 225 IPC. The alleged detenu No. 1 G. Venkateswara Rao is Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 77/96 under Section 447, 506 read with 34 IPC. Both the above cases were registered by H.C. 762 and both the cases are under investigation. During the course of investigation, the alleged detenus were called to the Police Station on 1-8-1996 at 8.00 A.M. A Constable by name G. Ramesh, PC No. 883 was deputed to the house of the alleged detenu to call them to the Police Station for enquiry purpose. The said Constable was deputed to call for the complainant and witnesses and other accused in the above said crimes. Accordingly the alleged detenus came on their own to the Police Station at 8.00 A.M. on 1-8-1996 along with Mr. P. Haribabu, P. Gopinath (PACS President) Mr. Ganapathi of their village and the alleged detenus and other elders of the village stated that the matter relates to civil dispute regarding property matter between Garapati Mohana Krishna and Garapati Ananda, who are brothers and that Garapati Ananda is the son-in-law of Gogineni Venkateswara Rao, the alleged detenu No. 1 herein. After enquiry as no prima facie case was made out and the other persons involved in the offence are yet to be examined, the alleged detenus were sent away on the same day at 9.30 A.M." He has denied the allegation in the affidavit that he came to the detenus' house in a Van with about 10 policemen and that no lady constable followed them and entered their house and abused them in filthy language. He has denied the allegation that police dragged the sister-in-law of the petitioner into the Police Van by holding her hands or that he did not allow her to take her nine month old baby or allow her to give milk to the baby and reiterated that the alleged detenus came on their own to the Police Station along with village elders on 1-8-1996 at 8.00 A.M. and since, after enquiry, no prima facie case was made out, they were sent away on the same day at 9.30 A.M. He has stated further :

(2.) It is clear from the above that a civil dispute is pending between the informant and others on the one hand and the petitioners and others on the other, in which case the civil court has passed some orders. If some thing has been done to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit by the petitioner and his family members, there is a clear remedy by way of an application before the civil Court for action against the violators of the order of injunction, if any. If, however, there has been any trespass and/or any other overt-acts which constitute cognizable offence and a complaint in this behalf was made to the Police, the Police had every justification to register a case for investigation and in course of investigation even to arrest any person suspected to have committed the offence or against whom there has been such evidence which could justify the arrest. The respondent, however, has claimed to have done only a part of it, i.e., registering a case and taking up investigation, and not the other part of taking the accused in custody and producing them before the competent Court as required under Article 22 of the Constitution of India read with relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He has pleaded before the Court that the persons accused in the complaint voluntarily came to the Police Station and after-interrogation, when it transpired that the matter was pertaining to a civil dispute, they were allowed to return to their home subject to further investigation in the case.

(3.) Petitioner and the alleged detenus, however, have made serious allegations constituting misdemeanor on the part of the Police in dealing with woman and persons who, although are allegedly charged with the commission of cognizable offences, were brought by him to the Police Station, kept in illegal detention and released them without taking any action against them. The allegation, in fact, has gone to the extent that a case has been shown to have been registered only to escape the action in this Court and only after knowing that the High Court has taken cognizance of the telegram sent by the petitioner.