While speaking out most vocally and commendably in favour of innocent persons, we see that the Kerala High Court in a most brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment titled Shalet vs State of Kerala & Ors in WP (C) No. 37943 of 2018 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024/KER/46733 that was pronounced just recently on June 21, 2024 has directed the State Police Chief of Kerala to take steps to ensure that innocent persons are not arrested or detained due to errors in identifying the persons who are actually to be arrested. It must be noted that the Court was dealing with a petition that had been filed by a woman who claimed that she was detained at a police station by mistake as her name and address were similar to the name and address of another person against whom a non-bailable warrant had been issued. We must also note that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Gopinath P underscored most unequivocally that it is critical for police officials to clearly establish the identity of individuals before detaining them.
At the very outset, this learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Gopinath P sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth succinctly in para 1 stating very clearly that, “The petitioner, who claims to be a tuition teacher by profession, has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 4 to 9 to refrain from harassing the petitioner or members of her family; for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to register criminal cases against respondent Nos. 4 to 9; and for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 1 to 9 to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner as compensation for the illegal arrest and detention of the petitioner by respondent Nos. 4 to 9.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while dwelling on the facts of the case that, “The brief facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner and her husband are accused in Crime No.573 of 2018 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam district alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation, in brief, is that the husband of the petitioner had obtained amounts from the de facto complainant and several others promising to secure for them a job in Israel, and after taking the de facto complainant and others to Jordan on the promise that they would be taken to Israel from Jordan, they were brought back to India without offering any job as promised. It is alleged that thereafter, the husband of the petitioner took the de facto complainant and others to Egypt, again promising that they would gain entry to Israel, and according to the de facto complainant, they were again brought back to India without obtaining for them any job as promised in Israel.”
While elaborating on the version of petitioner, the Bench discloses in para 3 that, “According to the petitioner, the allegations in the First Information Statement leading to registration of Crime No.573 of 2018 indicate that there were absolutely no allegations against the petitioner. But, however, she was arrayed as an accused in this case only to pressurize her husband, who is the other accused in the case. The petitioner secured anticipatory bail from this Court in Crime No.573 of 2018 of Eravipuram Police Station. Ext.P2 is the order dated 29-08-2018 in B.A.No.5503 of 2018 granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. While matters stood thus, on 16-11-2018, certain Police officials attached to the Eravipuram Police Station reached the residential house of the petitioner and allegedly entered into the house, after breaking open the door, and forcefully caught hold of the petitioner, outraged her modesty and pushed her into a Police jeep in front of her small children, using obscene and filthy language. It is also urged that the Police officials also stated that whatever the High Court or the Magistrate Court say, they will deal with cheats and fraudsters in any manner they like and punishment will also be as decided by them. It is alleged that when the neighbours asked the Police officials as to why the petitioner was being arrested, they were informed that if an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is given to one Nancy, the petitioner would be released from custody. According to the petitioner, after taking her to the Police Station, she was again abused using filthy language and threatened to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the aforesaid Nancy. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P3 newspaper report dated 17-11-2018 to contend that the so called drama of the arrest of the petitioner was later projected as a case of mistaken identity, and after detaining the petitioner in the Police Station till late in the evening, the petitioner was left free to go back to her house. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Police officials of the Eravipuram Police Station and in particular the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police attached to that Police Station at the relevant time had an axe to grind against the husband of the petitioner. It is submitted with reference to the pleadings in W.P(C)No.37828 of 2018, which was a petition filed by the petitioner along with her husband for Police protection, that it is clear from the pleadings in that writ petition, as also from the judgment in that writ petition, and also from the contempt of court proceedings initiated alleging violation of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment in W.P(C)No.37828 of 2018 that, the petitioner was picked up from her house for no reason and only with an intent to harass the petitioner. It is pointed out that from a reading of the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 to 9 and the statement filed by the learned Government Pleader there was absolutely no justification for arresting/detaining the petitioner in the Police Station from the morning on 16-11-2018 till late evening on the same day. It is submitted that the petitioner was released only after the local people created hue and cry regarding the illegal detention of the petitioner.”
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then mandates in para 7 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 to 9, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. It is no doubt true that in appropriate cases, where this Court is convinced that there has been a gross violation of human rights by illegally detaining a person, it may be open to this Court to grant compensation even in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, I am of the view that it must be demonstrably evident from the facts that the action of the Police authorities was nothing but an abuse of the law and in a violation of the fundamental rights of the citizen. I am unable to hold that this is a case where respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 to 9 had acted in a planned manner to deprive the petitioner of her liberty in order to harass her. In the facts of the present case, the action by respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 to 9 was in the execution of a warrant issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner do not, in my view, aid the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. In Shyam Balakrishnan (Supra) the Court was dealing with a situation where the aforesaid Shyam Balakrishnan was picked up by certain Police officials, dressed in plain clothes, when he was traveling on a motor cycle to Korom junction in Wayanadu district, on the ground that the motor cycle in which he was traveling belonged to two persons, who were being attempted to be traced by the Police in connection with Maoist activities. In Vipin P.V. (Supra) this Court was concerned with a situation where a young lawyer, who was returning after watching a movie, late at night, was intercepted by a patrol vehicle and was brutally attacked, causing injuries to him. The marked differences between the cases considered by this Court in Shyam Balakrishnan (Supra) and Vipin P.V. (Supra), and this case is that, here the Police were executing a Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam, and as already demonstrated, the name and address of the petitioner was strikingly similar to the name and address of the person mentioned in Ext.R3(a) Non-Bailable Warrant. While the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken pains to establish with reference to the pleadings in WP(C) No.37828/18, the Contempt of Court proceedings arising therefrom, as also the directions issued by this Court in WP(C) No.37828/2018 that, respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 to 9 had an axe to grind against the husband of the petitioner, I am unable to see any link connecting the issues brought before this Court in WP(C) No.37828/2018 with the incidents which led to the detention of the petitioner as above, on 16.11.2018. As already noticed, WP(C) No.37828/2018 was a writ petition filed by the petitioner along with her husband for Police protection. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to hold that the petitioner has made out any case for the award of compensation in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The other substantial relief sought for in the writ petition is for a direction to respondent Nos.4 to 9, not to harass the petitioner. With the passage of time, the officials against whom allegations of harassment were raised have already moved out of the said Police station. The other directions sought for, including criminal action against respondent Nos.4 to 9 also cannot be sustained in the light of the findings rendered in this judgment.
In the light of the above, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to observe that this is a case where there has been an admitted detention of the petitioner in connection with the execution of Non-Bailable Warrant issued against another person. The facts, therefore, bring out the urgent necessity of ensuring that the identity of the person is established clearly before any arrest/detention is made by the Police officials, either in the execution of a warrant issued by the court or otherwise. While I am not able to find any material to establish that the action of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 to 9 in this case was mala fide, the detention of the petitioner, on the basis of a wrong identity, has caused extreme prejudice to her. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that I have found that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation or for any of the other reliefs sought for in the writ petition, I deem it appropriate to direct the State Police Chief to come out with suitable instructions to ensure that similar instances of arrest or detention, on the basis of the wrong identity, does not result in the invasion into the life and liberty of innocent citizens.”
All told, we thus see that the Kerala High Court was not inclined to hold that the petitioner has made out any case for the award of compensation in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court could not find any material to conclude that her detention was mala fide. We saw how in this leading case the Kerala High Court was dealing with a plea by a woman who said that she was detained at a police station by mistake as her name and address were similar to those of another person against whom an arrest warrant was issued. We also see most commendably that the Kerala High Court very rightly asks the police chief to ensure always that innocent persons are not arrested due to any mistaken identity. Very rightly so!
Author Bio
