SUBE SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 03-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 
--J 
SUBE SINGH 
v 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 3,2006 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ., B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND R.V. 
RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950-Articles 21,32,226. 
Public Interest Litigation-I/legal detention, custodial torture and 
harassment of family members of criminal-Claim for Compensation-
petitioner's son when intercepted and questioned by a Police party committed>.. 
murder of a police constable-Po/ice Party brought petitioner and other 
members of his family to the police station for inquiring about the whereabouts 
A 
B 
c 
of his son-He was called to police station number of times-Petitioner sent D 
an undated letter to this court alleging illegal detention, custodial torture and 
harassment to family members, and claiming compensation for himself and his 
family-This Court directed inquiry by CBI-On CBI report, FIR was lodged 
against ten police officials uls 323, 342, 343, 365 and 384 of !PC-CBI 
reported that petitioner and._his son were involved in several criminal cases- E 
Petitioner and his relatives have made false and exaggerated claims in regard 
to illegal detention torture etc. apart from suppressing material fact-No clear. 
or incontrovertible evidence about custodial tortureJound-Al/egation not 
supported by medical report or visible markslscars-lfeld.:this is not a fit case 
for award of compensation as a Public law reme~However, it is open for 
the petitioner to seek redress from the civil or criminal court awarding F 
compensation. 
6ustqdial Violence/torture-Claim for compensation by family members 
of the criminal-Power under Articles 321226-Held, award of compensation 
against the state is an appropriate and effective Public law remedy for redress 
of an established or incontrovertible infringement of a fundamental right under G 
article 2 I by a public servant-;-Quantum of compensation would depend upon 
the facts and circumstances of each case-Award of such compensation will 
not effect the right to claim additional compensation by way of civil/criminal 
action-However, courts may not award compensation where the allegation 
67 
H 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2006) 2 S.C.R. 
A of custodial torture are false or exaggerated fully or in part and custodial 
torture is not established or supported by medical report or other evidence-
The aggrieved party in such cases is to be relegated to traditional remedies 
available under civil/criminal law-Further held, the degree of proof required 
in criminal prosecution relating to such matters is not strict. 
B 
Custodial Violence-Reasons and causes of custodial violence 
enumerated-Emphasis laid on preventive measures to tackle custodial violence 
effectively-A Balanced level of functioning suggested. 
While patrolling, the police party received information that petitioner's 
C son and his associates were conspiring in his house to apply pressure on some 
tender bidders. When the police party proceeded towards petitioner's house, 
they saw two young men coming on a motorcycle. When intercepted by the 
police party, petitioner's son fired at them killing one of the constables. Both 
the motorcyclists managed to escape. Police party went to the house of 
petitioner in search of his son. Not finding him there, they brought the 
D petitioner to the police station. Petitioner was released after inquiries. 
E 
Petitioner along with his relative filed a writ petition in the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court alleging harassment, torture and illegal detention. The 
High Court disposed of the petition with an observation that petitioners may 
file a criminal complaint in a competent Court. 
Petitioner then sent an undated letter to this court alleging illegal 
detention and police torture. He prayed for a direction to the police to stop 
the atrocities and torture and also sought compensation for himself and his 
family members. This Court registered that letter as writ petition under article 
32 of the Constitution. The Court directed the CBI to inquire into the matter. 
F The CBI had concluded that some of the allegations of the petitioner were 
substantiated while several others were not substantiated. On the basis of CBI 
report, FIR was lodged against ten police officials' u/s 323, 342, 343, 365 and 
384 of IPC. The CBI reported that petitioner and his son were involved in 
several criminal cases. It was also found that petitioner and his relatives have 
G made false and exaggerated claims in regard to illegal detention torture etc. 
a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.