Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Murlidhar Atmaram Wani, a retired driver from Municipal Council, Dharangaon, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) seeking two main reliefs: (i) directions to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 (Commissioner of Police, Nashik Division; District Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon; and State of Maharashtra) to take deterrent action against respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (Inspector D.D. Shankarwar, Police Head Constable S.N. Pardeshi, and Tahsildar Vitthal Sonwane) for their alleged illegal acts of harassing and torturing the petitioner; and (ii) directions to respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to pay compensation to the petitioner for such illegal acts. The petitioner claimed that on 13.4.2003 at about 6.30 p.m., one Jagannath Bansilal Shirsath went on the roof of the petitioner's house to commit theft of cable wire. The petitioner caught him red-handed, but the said person escaped as the petitioner was old and handicapped. The petitioner went to the police station to lodge an FIR, but the officer on duty told him to give a written complaint. On 14.4.2003, the petitioner gave a written complaint, but it was allegedly torn into pieces without being read, and no cognizance was taken. Instead, the police registered C.R. No. 165 of 2003 against the petitioner for assaulting Jagannath. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.1 demanded Rs.15,000/- for releasing him, and that his elder son Raju was also detained and released only after Rs.3000/- was paid. The respondents filed affidavits denying all allegations. The court, after hearing arguments, found that the petitioner failed to produce any independent evidence or contemporaneous documents to support his allegations. The court noted that the petitioner did not lodge any complaint with higher authorities or seek medical examination for alleged injuries. The court held that mere allegations in an affidavit are insufficient to prove malafides or abuse of power. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Judicial Review - The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can direct action against police officers for illegal acts and award compensation for violation of fundamental rights, but the petitioner must establish a clear case of malafides or abuse of power with cogent evidence. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Police Investigation - Registration of FIR - Duty to Register - The police have a duty to register a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence, but the court cannot direct registration of a particular FIR in writ proceedings unless there is a clear breach of statutory duty. (Paras 2-5) C) Evidence - Affidavits - Evidentiary Value - Mere allegations in an affidavit without corroboration by independent evidence or contemporaneous documents are insufficient to prove illegal detention or demand of bribe. (Paras 6-9) D) Tort - Compensation - Custodial Violence - Claim for Compensation - Compensation for alleged police harassment and torture can be awarded only if there is credible evidence of physical injury or mental agony caused by the police, and the burden lies on the petitioner to prove such acts. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner has made out a case for issuance of directions to take deterrent action against respondent police officers and for payment of compensation for alleged illegal harassment and torture.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- burden of proof on petitioner
- police powers of investigation
- compensation for custodial violence
- evidentiary value of affidavits
