Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, three women residing in Taleigao, Goa, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa, which was registered as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) due to serious issues of violation of human rights. The petition arose from an incident on 16 June 2003, when Crime No. 96/03 was registered at Panaji Police Station under Sections 307, 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act against Kamlesh Naik, Nilesh Mangueshkar, and Sanjeev Mangueshkar alias Gabba Mangueshkar, based on a complaint by Antonio Paulo D'Cruz. The petitioners are relatives of the accused: petitioner no. 1 is the wife of Kamlesh Naik, and petitioners no. 2 and 3 are sisters-in-law of the other two accused, all residing in the same house but in different portions. The petitioners alleged that on 17 June 2003, seven to eight policemen came to their house in search of the accused and caused damage. On 24 June 2003, the accused Kamlesh Naik and Nilesh Naik surrendered before the J.M.F.C., Panaji, and were initially remanded to judicial custody, but later remanded to police custody for two days, which was extended for another two days, expiring on 29 June 2003. The petition specifically pertains to an incident on 28 June 2003. The petitioners claimed that they had gone to lodge a complaint regarding the incident of 17 June 2003, but the Panaji Police Station refused to entertain their complaint, acting on instructions from a local MLA who was also a Minister. The court, after hearing the parties, directed the police to register the petitioners' complaint and provide adequate protection to the women petitioners, who alleged harassment and threat from the police. The court emphasized the duty of the police to register complaints when a cognizable offence is disclosed and held that failure to do so amounts to dereliction of duty. The court also noted that the petitioners were at liberty to seek appropriate remedy regarding the alleged damage caused by the police on 17 June 2003.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Police Duty to Register Complaint - Right to lodge FIR - The police have a statutory duty to register a complaint when a cognizable offence is disclosed, and failure to do so amounts to dereliction of duty - The court directed the police to register the petitioners' complaint and provide adequate protection to the women petitioners who alleged harassment and threat from the police - Held that the right to lodge a complaint is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution (Paras 1-10). B) Public Interest Litigation - Human Rights - Police Inaction - The court entertained the petition as a PIL due to serious issues of violation of human rights and police inaction - The court issued directions to the police to ensure that complaints are registered and that women are not harassed - Held that the court can intervene in matters of police misconduct to protect the rights of citizens (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the police have a duty to register complaints and provide protection to women who allege harassment and inaction by the police, and whether the court can issue directions in a Public Interest Litigation to ensure compliance with legal provisions.
Final Decision
The court directed the police to register the petitioners' complaint and provide adequate protection to the women petitioners. The court also held that the petitioners were at liberty to seek appropriate remedy regarding the alleged damage caused by the police on 17.06.2003.
Law Points
- Right to lodge FIR
- Police duty to register complaint
- Protection of women from harassment
- Public Interest Litigation
- Human rights violation
