LexRAGHUVANSH DEWANCHAND BHASIN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A· B [2011] 11 S.C.R. 300 RAGHUVANSH DEWANCHAND BHASIN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No.1758 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 9, 2011. [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: C Chapter VI - Processes to compel appearance - Waffant of arrest - In a complaint case for offence punishable uls 324 /PC on the date of hearing at preliminary stage, appellant being absent the court issued a non-bailable warrant against him - Held: Courts have to be extra-cautious D and careful while directing issue of non-bailable warrant, else a wrongful detention would amount to denial of constitutional mandate envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India - ·The power has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, having regard, inter-alia, to the nature and seriousness of the E offence involved; the past conduct of the accused, his age and the possibility of his absconding - In the instant case, having regard to nature of the complaint against the appellant and his stature in the community and the fact that he was regularly attending the court proceedings, it was not a fit case F where non-bailable waffant should have been issued - The attendance of the appellant could have been secured by issuing summons or at best by a bailable warrant - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 21 and 22(1). G ADMIN/STRA T/ON OF JUSTICE: Criminal Justice - Execution of warrants to compel appearance in court - non-bailable warrant issued against appellant executed even after it had been cancelled - 300 RAGHUVANSH DEWANCHAND BHASIN v. STATE 301 OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Appellant, in spite of his telling that the warrant had been A cancelled, was arrested before a public gathering during Independence Day celebrations, produced before the Dqty Magistrate and was released the same day - Writ petition by appellant before High Court seeking disciplinary action against Inspector of Police concerned as also compensation B damages and costs to be paid by him - High Court directing the Inspector to pay Rs. 2, 0001- to the appellant - Held: The High Court has rightly held that the Inspector did not perform his duty in the manner expected of a responsible police officer - As a matter of fact, being the guardian of the liberty of a C person, a heavy responsibility devolved on him to ensure that his office was not misused by the complainant to settle personal scores - The so-called urgency or promptness in execution led to undesirable interference with the liberty of the appellant - Such a conduct cannot receive a judicial D imprimatur- However, the appellant does not deserve further monetary compensation - Being a practicing Advocate himself, the appellant was fully conversant with the court procedure and, therefore, should have procured a copy of memo/order whereby the non-bailable warrant was cancelled E by the court - Though the conduct of the Inspector deserves to be deplored, yet, strictly speaking his action in detaining the appellant on the strength of the warrant in his possession, peihaps motivated, cannot be said to be per se without the authority of law - Therefore, no other action against him is F warranted - He has been sufficiently reprimanded - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 r/w Articles 226 and 32. Compensation ....; HELD: The power and jurisdiction of G Supreme Court and High Courts to grant monetary compensation in exercise of its jurisdiction respectively under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to a victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution are H \) 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 11 S.C.R. A violated are we/I-established - High Court has awarded Rs. 2, 0001- to the appellant - Having considered the case in the light of the fact-situation, the appellant does not deserve further monetary compensation. 8 Processes to compel appearance in court - Issuance of a warrant with endorsement "non-bailable" - Though no such terminology is found in the Code or Form-2, nevertheless, the endorsement of the expression "non-bailable" on a warrant is to facilitate the executing authority as well as the person C against whom the warrant· is sought to be executed to make them aware as to the nature of the warrant that has been issued - Merely because the warrant uses the expression "non-bailable': that by itself cannot render the warrant bad in Jaw - In order to check or obviate the possibility
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.