IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.4023 of 1998 Between: Smt. Y.Nagasri, W/o. Y.Soma Sekha, R/o. 23-39-25/A, Raja Street, Laxmi nagar, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P., Rep. S.P., W.P.C., C.I.D., P.S., Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 Sri P.Venkataram Reddy, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 Sri K.S.N.Murthy, IPS., Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Vijayawada. 5 Smt. K.Bhanumathi, W/o. Sri K.Nageswara Rao. R/o. 25-1-19, Near Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass appropriate writ, order or direction particularly a writ of Mandamus, declaring the report ddated 03/11/1997 prepared by Respondent No.3 herein as illegal, unjust, void and consequently set aside the same and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to award such compensation as deemed fit to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders against respondent No.1 and 2 for having illegally detained the petitioner from 17/05/1997 to 19/05/1997 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.M.REDDY The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.4023 of 1998 O R D E R: Petitioner, Smt.Y.Nagasri, W/o.Y.Somasekhar, resident of Vijayawada seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the report dated 03.11.1997 of the 3rd respondent/Deputy Inspector General of Police (Operations) CID, A.P.Hyderabad, in letter No.54/DIG (Ops)/CID/97 as illegal, unjust and void and set aside the same and to award compensation for her illegal detention from 17.05.1997 to 19.05.1997. 2. The 1st respondent is the S.P.,WPC,CID P.S, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and the 2nd respondent Mr.P.Venkatram Reddy is the Inspector of Police, WPC CID PS Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and 5th respondent is the sister-in-law of the petitioner i.e. her brother’s wife. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent got married her younger brother on 19.04.1992 at Vijayawada. The 5th respondent left her husband on 28.11.1992 due to some differences and since then she has been staying with her parents at Vijayawada. The 5th respondent filed a complaint before the 1st respondent-S.P, Woman Protection Cell, CBCID, Hyderabad on 30.08.1996. It is stated that the father of the petitioner was summoned by CBCID Police, Hyderabad on 04.09.1996 through CBCID police, Vijayawada. The petitioner attended the 1st respondent on 30.04.1997 along with his father, and the 5th respondent filed another complaint before the 1st respondent on 25.04.1997. It is stated that on the said complaint, a case was registered in F.I.R.No.41/97 under Sec.498-A, 354, 406 and 307 of IPC read with Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is stated that in that connection, the 2nd respondent Sri P.Venkatram Reddy along with two male constables took the petitioner into custody at 5.30 a.m. on 17.05.1997 from her house at Vijayawada and brought to Hyderabad in APSRTC Bus bearing No.7872. It is stated that on the same day i.e. on 17.05.1997 by another team of the police of the 1st respondent, the brother of the petitioner was also taken into custody from his residence at Malkajigiri, Hyderabad. The petitioner was brought to Hyderabad in the said APSRTC Bus No.7872 and reached Hyderabad around 3 p.m. and the police traveled in the same bus by exchanging warrant. As there was no lady constable accompanied them, the husband of the petitioner and minor son were also accompanied the petitioner to Hyderabad in the same bus. She was brought to the Women Protection Cell at Lakdikapool and detained there till the evening of 18.05.1997. 4. It is further stated that on 18.05.1997 evening the petitioner and her brother were brought to Krishna Hotel, Lakdikapool and were stayed in Room No.147 and one constable was deputed for watch and warding them. The petitioner and her brother were taken to the police station on 19.05.1997 and kept them till about 3 p.m. and again brought back to the Hotel and got them vacated the room, and thereafter they were produced before the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate for remand, and accordingly, the petitioner and her brother were remanded to judicial custody. 5. It is stated that on 18.05.1997 a telegram was issued by the grandmother of the petitioner and this Court taken up the same as writ petition being W.P.11082/1997. After obtaining the bail, the petitioner filed WP.12074/1997 and in that writ petition, this Court passed interim order on 14.07.1997 directing the petitioner to make a representation before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent was directed to conduct enquiry thereon. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation before the 3rd respondent and an enquiry was conducted and the impugned report was filed. 6. After filing of the impugned report, the Division Bench of this Court, taken up both the writ petitions viz. WP.11082/1997 and WP.12074/1997 and made the following order on 08.12.1997: “These two Writ Petitions were disposed of by this Court on 14.07.1997 directing the respondent authorities to enquire into the matter as to whether the alleged detenues i.e. the petitioner’s (in W.P.No.11082/97) grand daughter, who was the petitioner in W.P.No.12074/97 and her husband and her son were in actual detention of police from 17.05.1997 to 19.05.1997 or in judicial custody. Accordingly, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Ops.), C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, has filed his enquiry report. The relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder. “The counsel of the accused did not raise the issue of unlawful detention either with the police or before the Hon’ble Court. The allegation of unlawful detention is far from truth and the claim of compensation at best is a concatenation of ideas to wriggle out of the situation. There is no evidence nor reliable information with proof that the police pressurized the accused to accede to the payment of ransom of Rs.3 lakhs from the accused to get an easy divorce and be free from criminal proceedings except the affidavit of Sri Panduranga Rao. It seems the police personnel took up the case with fervour and in their earnestness to deal with the case overstepped their limits in dealing with the accused, which might have given scope for them to take it as a slur on their pride and prompted them to prefer a complaint against the police. The whole episode does not deviate from the rightful course of enquiry in producing the arrested accused before the Hon’ble XXII Metropolitan Magistrate within the stipulated time and insofar as no ill treatment was meted out to them. It is clear that no mala fides can be attributed to the officer, but, however, unwittingly there was communication gap, which made them to suffer a little inconvenience, for which the concerned officer Sri P.Venkatrama Reddy may be departmentally dealt with.” In view of the above, no further orders are necessary and the proceedings are accordingly dropped. However, if the petitioners feel biased in the above report, they are at liberty to agitate the issue before an appropriate Forum.” 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid observations giving liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue before an appropriate Forum, this writ petition has been filed contending that the petitioner was illegally detained for more than 24 hours, and therefore, she is entitled for compensation as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of D.K.Basu vs. State of W.B.[1]. The Apex Court in the said case held that if it is established that there is a breach of fundamental rights, the monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for rederessal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. The payment of the compensation is an addition and without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages for the tortuous act committed by the functionaries of the State apart from taking criminal action. The relief to redress the wrong for the established invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizen, under the public law jurisdiction is, thus, in addition to the traditional remedies and not in derogation of them. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Court and paid by the State to redress the wrong done, may in a given case, be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded to the claimant by way of damages in a civil suit. 8. Heard the arguments of either side and considered the material available on record. 9. The question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether there is any infringement of fundamental right of the petitioner by keeping her in the police custody for more than 24 hours. 10. The averments made in the writ affidavit about the petitioner’s arrest said to have been made by the respondents 1 and 2 at her house at Vijayawada on 17.05.1997 and brought her to Hyderabad in APSRTC Bus No.7872 and the police traveled in the same bus with warrant are denied in the counter. But the 4th respondent who is Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada filed counter stating that on 17.05.1997 Bus No.7872 belonging to Hyderabad-1 Depot was operated on the route Vijayawada to Hyderabad and four passengers were traveled in the said bus on the strength of police warrant bearing No.64006. Therefore, the denial of the 2nd respondent that the police never traveled in the said APSRTC Bus No.7872, but they have traveled in APSRTC Hi-tech Bus No.7822 on the strength of bus warrant No.64006 from Vijayawada to Hyderabad on 17.05.1997 appears to be incorrect and untruthful in view of the counter filed by the 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent also denied with regard to arrest, but only stated that the petitioner was not at all arrested in connection with the said case and she was not in illegal custody for more than 24 hours. It is stated that the petitioner was only asked to go over to Hyderabad and on the said request of the respondents 1 and 2, she with her husband and son accompanied the police to the bus stand at Vijayawada and the 2nd respondent left Vijayawada on 17.05.1997 at 9 a.m. and reached Hyderabad by 3 p.m. on the same day. The 2nd respondent denied the allegation that the petitioner was brought from her residence along with 2nd respondent and two other police constables. The allegation that the petitioner was illegally kept in the police custody in a hotel room at Lakdikapool was also denied. 11. The petitioner questions the enquiry report of the 3rd respondent dated 03.11.1997. The 3rd respondent in the aforesaid enquiry report observed that as per Case Diary, A1 and the petitioner were arrested on 19.05.1997 at the A1’s residence NMDC colony, East Anandbagh, Malkajgiri. The allegation with regard to detention of the petitioner at Hotel Krishna, Lakdikapool, in Room No.147 from 18.07.1997 to 19.07.1997 till 3 p.m., it was observed that A1 alone booked room No.147 at Badam Balakrishna Hotel, Lakdikapool on 18.05.1997 and they were not kept under detention. It is stated that in fact A1-K.Nageswararao made a statement about the booking of the room to attend the official work and there is evidence to show that three persons were stayed in the said room. But it is stated that the Hotel staff did not reveal who were the said three persons occupied the room on 18.05.1997. It is also stated that there is no evidence to show that one police constable was deputed for watching over the occupants of the room No.147 or any other room. 12. The perusal of the records, enquiry report of the 3rd respondent and the counter filed by the 2nd respondent go to show that there is some truth in the averments made by the petitioner with regard to the allegation that she was brought from her house from Vijayawada by the 2nd respondent along with two other police constables on 17.05.1997 and she stayed in a Hotel at Lakdikapool along with her husband and son, but there is no evidence establishing that she was in fact detained by the police. There is also no evidence as to whether she came on her own or at request of the police and whether there was an illegal custody without showing her arrest. Whether she was voluntarily accompanied the police on their request or whether she was forcibly brought from Vijayawada to Hyderabad and kept under the watch and ward of the police is not clearly established. Therefore, I am of the opinion that as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP.Nos.11082 and 12074 of 1997, dated 08.12.1997, the petitioner has to establish the said alleged illegal detention in a proper constituted civil suit alone as the disputed questions of facts cannot be decided in the present writ petition. However, there is no allegation against the police either with regard to their misbehaviour or harassment and the mental agony said to have been caused to the petitioner, and in the absence of establishing the damages, it is not possible for this Court to assess the damages as the illegal confinement itself has not been established. 13. For the foregoing observations, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedies before the appropriate authority/Court where it requires enquiry to be conducted after receiving the oral and documentary evidence. However, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where departmental action has to be initiated against the 2nd respondent, as rightly stated in the impugned report of the 3rd respondent, dated 03.11.1997. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 21.07.2008 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 State of A.P., Rep. S.P., W.P.C., C.I.D., P.S., Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Vijayawada. 2 2. 2CCs to 3. 2CD copies [1] (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 416