LexDR. RINI JOHAR & ANR. versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 5 S.C.R. S79
579
DR. RINI JOHAR & ANR.
A
v.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 30 of2015)
JUNE 03, 2016
B
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.)
Constitution of India:
Arts. 21 and 32 - Complaint against two ladies-petitioners (a
doctor and a practicing advocate) - FIR registered against them u/
s. 42() rlw s. 34 !PC and uls. 66-D of Information Technology Act
(IT Act) - Arrest of the petitioners - Later they were enlarged on
bail - Complaint of petitioners against a police official for demand
and acceptance of bribe from them - Initiation of criminal
proceedings against the erring police officials - They also alleged
violations of provision ulss. 41-A to 41-C Cr.P.C -
In the inquiry
into the allegations, found that procedure for arrest not followed -
In petitioners' application for discharge, Magistrate discharged them
uls. 66-D of IT Act and continued proceedings uls. 66-A {b) of IT
Act r/w s. 420134 !PC - Present writ petition - Held: Arrest of the
petitioners was not made by following the procedure of arrest as
enshrined u/ss. 41 and 41-A Cr.P. C - Their liberty was curtailed in
violation of law - The manner in which the petitioners were treated
by the police team has seriously jeopardized their dignity violating
Art. 21 of the Constitution - Compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs is granted
to each of the petitioners for their suffering and humiliation - The
criminal proceedings against the petitioners are also liable to be
quashed as the dispute is purely of civil nature - No ingredient uls.
420 !PC is made out and s. 66-A of IT Act has been struck down
being violative of Art. 19(l)(a) of Constitution - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - ss. 41 and 41A - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 420 rlw.
s. 34 - Information Technology Act, 1995 - s. 66-A.
Art. 32 - Writ Petition - Alleging violation of procedure of
arrest and curtailment of liberty - Maintainability of - Held:
Initiation of disciplinary proceeding or criminal prosecution should
not be impediment in deciding violation of such rights.
579
c
D
E
F
G
H
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 5 S.C.R.
A
Remedy - Public Law Remedy -Applicability of- Held: When
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
the Jnvestigatillg Officer flouts the law, public law remedy comes
into play.
Allowing the petition, the Court
HELD: L Initiation of a disciplinary proceeding or criminal
prosecution should not be an impediment for delineation as
regards the violation of procedure of arrest and curtailment of
liberty. Therefore, it cannot be said that the matter cannot be
adjudicated as the State Government had already conducted an
enquiry with regard to the conduct of police officials and initiated
proceedings against the 3"1 respondent. (Para 11)(580-C-DJ
2.1 On scrutiny of the enquiry report, it is quite vivid that
the arrest of the petitioners was not made by following the
procedure of arrest. Section 41-A CR.P.C has not been followed.
The report clearly shows there have been number of violations
in the arrest, and seizure. Circumstances in no case justify the
manner in which the petitioners were treated. [Para 2211595-A-
B)
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.. (1994) 4 SCC 260;
D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416 : 1996
(10) Suppl. SCR 284; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
(1993) 2 SCC 746 : 1993 (2) SCR 581; State of MP. l'
Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995) 4 SCC 262 : 1995 (1)
Suppl. SCR 44; Amesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and
Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 : 2014 (8) SCR 128 - relied
on.
2.2 The two ladies have been arrested without following
the procedure and put in the compartment ofa train without being
produced before the local Magistrate from Pone to Bhopal. The
dignity of the petitioners, a doctor and a practicing Advocate has
been seriously jeopardized. Dignity, is the quintessential quality
of a personality, for it is a highly cherished value. It is also clear
that liberty of the petitioner was curtailed in violation of law. The
freedom of an individual has its sanctity. When the individual
liberty is curtailed in an unlawful manner, the victim is likely to
feel more anguished, agonized, shaken, perturbed, disillusioned
and emotionally torn. It is an assault on his/her identity. The
DR. RINI JOHAR & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
581
said identity is sacrosanct under the Constitution. Therefore,
A
for curtailment ofliberty, requisite norms are to be followed. (Para
23J(595-C-F)
Charu Khurana v. Union of India (2Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.