Bombay HC Slams Police Abuse Of Power, Orders ₹1 Lakh Compensation For Unlawful Arrest
|The Bombay High Court ordered the State to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation to a woman from Mumbai for the unlawful arrest of her husband, while also highlighting serious concerns over police misconduct.
The incident that led to the legal battle occurred when petitioner’s husband was arrested on allegations of illegal construction while the couple was in the process of repairing their home. Their neighbor, allegedly seeking a bribe, demanded ₹20,000 from them. When they refused, the neighbor filed a complaint accusing them of illegal construction.
They went to the Wadala TT Police Station to report the harassment, but their complaint was dismissed, with the police claiming that it fell under the jurisdiction of another authority. Shortly after, petitioner’s husband was arrested, along with five workers from the construction site.
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, expressed deep frustration over how cases involving police misconduct are often dismissed or treated with indifference. Referring to a previous order issued in 2013, the Court noted that allegations against police officers are routinely downplayed, and citizens are not believed or treated with due seriousness. "We had already expressed our anguish in no uncertain words in our order dated August 14, 2013, specifically by recording that the allegations against the police officers are taken very lightly and casually, and the citizens are not believed as a matter of course. Here is a classic example," the Court remarked.
Advocate Suvidha Patil represented the petitioners, while Additional Public Prosecutor DJ Haldankar appeared for the State.
The respondent, Assistant Police Inspector (API), who handled the case, allegedly demanded ₹12,000 for his release and ₹1,200 for each worker. After the workers paid the fines, they were released, but he remained in custody until he was granted bail. It was also claimed that API initially asked petitioner to pay ₹10,000 to close the case altogether.
The police defended their actions by citing the Maharashtra Police Act, which prohibits unauthorized construction that could endanger public safety. However, the Court disagreed with this justification, stating that while the police may have had the power to arrest, it was not obligatory in this case. "Even if assuming that there was power of arrest, it did not make it imperative for a police officer to effect the arrest," the Bench noted, emphasizing that alternative remedies should have been explored before resorting to arrest.
The Court also expressed strong dissatisfaction with the disciplinary proceedings against API. Despite the Court’s earlier orders directing a thorough inquiry into the police’s actions, he was only imposed a minor fine of ₹2,000. The Court criticized the authorities for their failure to properly investigate the legal justification for his actions, and for focusing solely on his failure to file an affidavit in a previous court order.
"We are astonished by the approach of the Respondent authorities," the Bench stated, highlighting the failure of the inquiry to address the core issue of misconduct. "We fail to make out as to whether the respondent authorities have failed to understand the implications of the directions issued by this Court or despite understanding, the same has been ignored by passing the impugned order and imposing fine upon Mr. Jadhav only for the act of non-filing of the affidavit in compliance with our order," the Court said, pointing out the serious oversight in the disciplinary process.
The Court ultimately ruled that the arrest was an abuse of police power and a misuse of authority, causing unnecessary suffering to the petitioners. It stressed that despite the Court’s clear directions, no meaningful action had been taken against API.
The Court awarded ₹1 lakh in compensation to petitioner for her husband's unlawful detention. The State was directed to pay the compensation, with the proviso that the amount could be recovered from the police officers responsible for the illegal arrest.
The Court further emphasized the need for higher authorities to ensure compliance with its directives, urging that "We leave it to the good conscience of the higher-ups in the Police Department to ensure compliance of our orders dated 14.08.2013, if it is permissible and possible after more than a decade."
Cause Title: Ratna Chandrakant Vannam & Anr. v. Tukaram K. Jadhav, [2024:BHC-AS:44106-DB]