ARYENDRA NATH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner, namely, Sri Aryendra Nath Gupta, has made a prayer for declaring his arrest and detention for the period from 20-1-1997 to 29-1-1997 as illegal coupled with the prayer for a direction on the respondents to afford a consolidation damages of Rs. 2 lacs and another consolidated damages of Rs. 1 lac for the suffering of his family members by contending, inter alia, that he was arrested on 18-1-1997 at the mid-night by the police and thereafter released on bail on the very same day. But, on the basis of a complaint/FIR lodged by one Sri A. K. Bhattacharjee with the Laitumkhrah Police Station, a case was registered against him, being Laitumkhrah PS Case No. 6(1) 1997 under Sections 341, 326 and 307, Indian Penal Code. However, the FIR lodged by the writ petitioner on 19-1-1997 was not registered and the petitioner was arrested on the basis of the said FIR lodged by the said Sri A. K. Bhattacharjee on 20-1-1997 at 8-30 p.m. and his three consecutive bail applications were rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong. However, the petitioner was released on bail on 29-1-1997, and in view of the above circumstances, he remained in judicial custody for long 9 days, i.e., from 20-1-1997 to 28-1-1997. Supporting the case of the petitioner, Mr. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that in view of the registration of the aforesaid police station case as against the petitioner, the petitioner, a Central Government Class-I employee, was suspended from service as he could not come out on bail within 48 hours, and he suffered both financial, and otherwise during his custody period. Though, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner, two penal provisions, i.e. penal offences under Ss. 326 and 308 were dropped, and the petitioner was tried for the rest of the offences, and later on in terms of the related judgment and order dated 30-10-2000, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Ss. 341 and 323, Indian Penal Code, i.e., during the pendency of this writ petition in this Court. Mr. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, went on to contend that the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the said malicious prosecution engineered by one Sri Sampat Kumar, Director, Telecom (Maintenance) in collusion with official respondents 3 and 4 particularly. According to Mr. Choudhury, a consolidated damages of Rs. 2 lacs should be afforded to the petitioner by the respondents for his illegal arrest and detention for long 9 days and another consolidated damages of Rs. 1 lac be afforded for the suffering of his family members financially, mentally and otherwise, and further the costs of legal expenses incurred so far as assessed by the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. V. K. Jindal, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents, at the hearing contended that the present writ proceeding is not maintainable, and the case of the petitioner is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court as there is efficacious and alternative remedy under the related provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and also on perusal of the available materials on record, I am of the view that this writ petition is devoid of any merit for the following reasons :-