247wp227.09.sxw 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.227 of 2009 (Smt. Sunita Ganesh Jadhav and Ors. vs. State and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D.D.Sinha & P. B. Varale, JJ. Date : 24/07/2009. Heard Mr. A. S. Kilor, Adv. for petitioners and Mr.A.G.Mujumdar, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Counsel for petitioners states that, so far as the first prayer made in the petition is concerned, petitioners do not want to press the same in order to exhaust the alternate remedy of criminal complaint available to the petitioners in law. However, so far as the payment of compensation of Rs.Ten Lakhs for handcuffing the petitioners nos. 2 and 3 is concerned, it is contended that the police have no authority in law to handcuff petitioner nos. 2 and 3. There was neither order of the Court to that effect nor the police were vested with powers to handcuff petitioner nos. 2 and 3. The action of police is in violation of basic right of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and in 247wp227.09.sxw 2 . breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.Ten Lacs from the respondents. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 2193, Citizen for Democracy through its President .vs. State of Assam and Ors. Mr. Mujumdar, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that so far as petitioner no.3 and other co-accused in crime nos. 23 of 2009 and 3010 of 2009 are concerned, they have a long criminal history; in the past many criminal cases were instituted against them; in some of them, they are acquitted and other cases are pending for trial. It is contended that, so far as petitioner no.3 is concerned, there were as many as nine criminal cases registered against him. It is further contended that, on the day of incident, Police Sub-Inspector/respondent no.5 attached to Police Station, Khamgaon received information that petitioners were running gambling den and therefore, after obtaining permission from the Superior Officer, he arranged for raid and the raiding party went to the place where gambling was going on. It is contended that, while carrying out the raid, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 resisted the Police Authorities and also assaulted some of the Police Officers and therefore, Crime No.23 of 2009 for the offences punishable u/ss. 247wp227.09.sxw 3 . 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 333 and 334 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered. It is further contended that another crime was also registered under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. It is contended that this is not the case where the Police Officers without taking permission from the Superior Officer conducted raid and therefore, it is submitted that the compensation claimed by petitioners is unjustifiable. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective parties. At the outset, we want to express that the petitioners as well as other co-accused have a criminal history, many criminal cases were instituted against them in the past; out of which, in some of them they are acquitted and in others, criminal trials are pending. The affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Buldana prima-facie shows that while conducting raid the Police Officers were assaulted by the petitioners and therefore, crime nos. 23 of 2009 and 3010 of 2009 came to be registered against the petitioners. Since the criminal proceedings are sub- judice, we do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the matter at this stage, which may cause prejudice to the parties to the criminal proceedings. At the same time, so far as entitlement of compensation is concerned, it will appropriate to keep this issue open till the prosecution launched by the respondent against the 247wp227.09.sxw 4 . petitioners is concluded one way or the other. It will be always open for the petitioners to canvass their grievance in this regard at the appropriate stage. In the circumstances, we dispose of the petition accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE jais