The Allahabad High Court recently rejected a petition alleging custodial torture, emphasizing that claims of police brutality require clear, incontrovertible evidence, such as a medical report, for the Court to take action.

The writ petition by Shah Faisal sought compensation and disciplinary action against two police officers, alleging that they unlawfully detained and assaulted him while demanding a bribe.

The Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed the claim, noting that the petitioner had not provided any corroborative medical or documentary evidence to substantiate his allegations.

The Bench said, "Keeping this in mind, the Court while zealously protecting the fundamental rights of those, who are subjected to any kind of torture in the custody, should also stand guard against all false, motivated, and frivolous claims in the interest of the society and to enable the police to discharge their duties fearlessly and effectively. Every arrest and detention does not amount to custodial torture."

Advocates Adeel Ahmad Khan, appeared for Faisal, and Advocate Ram Bahadur Singh appeared for the State.

Faisal claimed he was unlawfully detained on February 14, 2021, by officers who allegedly demanded Rs. 50,000 and subjected him to physical assault when he refused. He further contended that no FIR was registered despite filing multiple complaints.

The Court underscored that frivolous claims of custodial torture undermine the judicial system and could impede police efforts. It cautioned that without substantial evidence, such as a medical report proving injuries from custody, petitions under Articles 32 or 226 are inappropriate.

The Court also highlighted three essential criteria for such cases: incontrovertible violation of human rights under Article 21, the magnitude of violation sufficient to shock judicial conscience, and clear proof of custodial torture. "It is the duty of the Court that before entertaining such kind of petitions, for compensation and any action to be taken against the police officials, for judicial torture, the Court has to pose to itself the following questions: (a) whether there is violation of any human rights or violation of Article 21, which is patent and incontrovertible; (b) whether such violation is gross and of such magnitude to shock the conscience of the court and (c) whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that there was custodial torture. When such allegation is not supported by any medical report or other corroborative evidence, the Court ought not to entertain such kind of proceeding," the Bench said.

"The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time, the crime rate is also increasing. The Court has been receiving complaints about violation of human rights. The violation of human rights has to be balanced with the implementation of law. There has to be a realistic balance between individual rights, liberties and privileges, on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on the other," the Court added.

Examining the facts, the Court observed that the petitioner’s claims appeared exaggerated, especially given an FIR against him for allegedly assaulting another individual. An investigation into the allegations found no wrongdoing by police officers, leading to their discharge.

"In the instant matter, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner is an innocent person. In fact, there was an FIR lodged against him, wherein he was accused of beating one Rishikesh Bharti by a rod. The petitioner had made a complaint in IGRS portal and the SSP had initiated the inquiry. After the inquiry nothing was found against the respondent nos.4 and 5 and accordingly, they were discharged, which has not been assailed by the petitioner and the entire enquiry proceeding initiated against the respondent nos.4 and 5 has attained finality. More over, there is no violation of any human rights of the petitioner which is patent and incontrovertible, neither it can be said to be gross violation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the law enforcement agencies had gone overboard in repressing the crime in the society," the Court noted.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that unsubstantiated allegations alone do not warrant compensation or relief. "In the instant case, there is no clear or incontrovertible evidence about custodial torture of the petitioner. In absence of any such material, we do not find that the instant matter falls in such category, wherein this Court may accord any compensation or any other relief, as accorded by this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Verma (supra) and Ramesh Chand Gupta (supra). Therefore, we are not inclined to accord any such compensation or any other relief in the light of the Supurdginama, which was prepared on 16.02.2021 and the same was duly endorsed by the petitioner himself, wherein he himself had accepted that the petitioner along with his father was called on 16.02.2021 for an enquiry and after the enquiry, he went alongwith his father," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Shah Faisal v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:164048-DB]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Adeel Ahmad Khan, Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, Saddam Husain

Respondent: Government Advocate Ram Bahadur Singh

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Mahesh Chandra TripathiJustice Prashant KumarAllahabad High Court

Sukriti Mishra