CHITTARANJAN BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, having been allegedly subjected to harassment, torture and humiliation by the Officer-in-Charge, Mahakalpada Police Station in connection with Mahakalpada P.S. Case No.57 of 1992 corresponding to G.R. Case No.558 of 1992 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara, even though his name was neither found placed in the FIR nor in the charge sheet, has approached this Court by filing the present application claiming for compensation.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case in hand is that on 03.06.1992, the then Presiding Officer of Ward No.11 and 12 (Bankichhanda) of Deulapara Gram Panchayat, who was on election duty, submitted a written information to the Election Officer, Mahakalapada stating inter alia that some people came inside the booth and forcibly took away the ballot papers etc., while the election was going on. Due to the said act, the election was affected and the same was postponed. On the basis of the said information, the Addl. Tahasildar, Marshaghai-cum-Election Officer, vide letter no.1668 dated 03.06.1992, lodged a written report before the OIC, Mahakalpada P.S. requesting to take necessary steps against the mischievous persons as per law. The said written report was treated as FIR and registered as Mahakalpada P.S. Case No.57 of 1992 under Sections 448/171-F/34, IPC. Accordingly, the prosecuting agency, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet on 30.06.1992, from which it reveals that Ranjit Samal, son of Raju Samal; Kumar Behera, son of Krutibash Behera; and Tukuna Behera son of Ekadasi Behera were involved in the said activities. On receipt of the charge-sheet, which was filed on 16.07.1992, the learned SDJM issued summons to the accused persons named in the charge sheet on 22.09.1992.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before this Court that such callous action of the police authorities against the petitioner time and again has affected the fundamental rights of the petitioner with regard to his right to live with dignity as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as neither the petitioner was an accused nor was he in any way connected with the aforementioned case. More particularly, on the basis of the documents placed before the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara, namely, photo identity card, school leaving certificate and admit card issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, although it was clearly revealed that the petitioner is Chitta Ranjan Behera, son of Niranjan Behera, but the police all the times has harassed the petitioner by impersonating him as Tukuna Behera, son of Ekadasi Behera, even though actually he was not an accused in the charge-sheet submitted by the police during investigation. It is further contended that the mental agony and the torture, which the petitioner sustained, cannot be compensated in any manner. Furthermore, the reputation of the petitioner in the public, which has been tarnished for callous and irrational action of the police authority, amounts to violation of the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India, for which the petitioner has to be compensated for the harassment, custodial torture and humiliation done to him by the local police. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in Dr. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh, 2012 5 Supreme 370 and of this Court in Manibhadra Biswal v. State of Orissa and others, 2003 2 OrissaLR 151.