Case: Dr. Rini Johar &amp; Another Vs. State of M.P. &amp; Others

harassment in custody, deliberating on the concept of harassment, the Court stated thus:- “22. At this juncture, it becomes absolutely necessary to appreciate what is meant by the term “harassment”. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., the term “harass” has been defined thus:“Harass.—‘Injure’ and ‘injury’ are words having numerous and comprehensive popular meanings, as well as having a legal import. A line may be drawn between these words and the word ‘harass’, excluding the latter from being comprehended within the word ‘injure’ or ‘injury’. The synonyms of ‘harass’ are: to weary, tire, perplex, distress tease, vex, molest, trouble, disturb. They all have relation to mental annoyance, and a troubling of the spirit.”The term “harassment” in its connotative expanse includes torment and vexation. The term “torture” also engulfs the concept of torment. The word “torture” in its denotative concept includes mental and psychological harassment. The accused in custody can be put under tremendous psychological pressure by cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” 26. In the said case, emphasizing on dignity, it has been observed:- “…..The majesty of law protects the dignity of a citizen in a society governed by law. It cannot be forgotten that the welfare State is governed by the rule of law which has paramountcy. It has been said by Edward Biggon “the laws of a nation form the most instructive portion of its history”.The Constitution as the organic law of the land has unfolded itself in a manifold manner like a living organism in the various decisions of the court about the rights of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. When citizenry rights are sometimes dashed against and pushed back by the members of City Halls, there has to be a rebound and when the rebound takes place, Article 21 of the Constitution springs up to action as a protector….” 27. In the case at hand, there has been violation of Article 21 and the petitioners were compelled to face humiliation. They have been treated with an attitude of insensibility. Not only there are violation of guidelines issued in the case of D.K. Basu (supra), there are also flagrant violation of mandate of law enshrined under Section 41 and Section 41-A of CrPC. The investigating officers in no circumstances can flout the law with brazen proclivity. In such a situation, the public law remedy which has been postulated in Nilawati Behra (supra), Sube Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 3 SCC 178 ), Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P. (2012) 1 SCC 748 ), comes into play. The constitutional courts taking note of suffering and humiliation are entitled to grant compensation. That has been regarded as a redeeming feature. In the case at hand, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, we think it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation to each of the petitioners to be paid by the State of M.P. within three months hence. It will be open to the State to proceed against the erring officials, if so advised. 28. The controversy does not end here. Mr. Fernandes, learned Amicus Curiae would urge that it was a case for discharge but the trial court failed to appreciate the factual matrix in proper perspective. As the matter remained pending in this court for some time, and we had dealt with other aspects, we thought it apt to hear the learned counsel for the aspect of continuance of the criminal prosecution. We have narrated the facts at the beginning. The learned Magistrate by order dated 19.2.2015 has found existence of prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-A(b) of I.T. Act, 2000 read with Section 34 IPC. It is submitted by Mr. Fernandes that Section 66-A of the I.T. Act, 2000 is not applicable. The submission need not detain us any further, for Section 66-A of the I.T. Act, 2000 has been struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2) in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 ). The only offence, therefore, that remains is Section 420 IPC. The learned Magistrate has recorded a finding that there has been no impersonation. However, he has opined that there are some material to show that the petitioners had intention to cheat. On a perusal of the FIR, it is clear to us that the dispute is purely of a civil nature, but a maladroit effort has been made to give it a criminal colour. In Devendra v. State of U.P. (2009) 7 SCC 495 ), it has been held thus:- “.. it is now well settled that the High Court ordinarily would exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the allegations made in the first information report, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, do not make out any offence. When the allegations made in the first information report or the evidences collected during investigation do not satisfy the ingredients of an offence, the superior courts would not encourage harassment of a person in a criminal court for nothing”. 29. In the present case, it can be stated with certitude that no ingredient of Section 420 IPC is remotely attracted. Even if it is a wrong, the complainant has to take recourse to civil action. The case in hand does not fall in the categories where cognizance of the offence can be taken by the court and the accused can be asked to face trial. In our considered opinion, the entire case projects a civil dispute and nothing else. Therefore, invoking the principle laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), we quash the proceedings initiated at the instance of the 8th respondent and set aside the order negativing the prayer for discharge of the accused persons. The prosecution initiated against the petitioners stands quashed.30. Consequently, the

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995) 4 SCC 262 )the Court laid down certain guidelines to be followed in cases of arrest and detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures. The said guidelines read asThe police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. Thest be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well.(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record.(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.In the present case, it can be stated with certitude that no ingredient of Section 420 IPC is remotely attracted. Even if it is a wrong, the complainant has to take recourse to civil action. The case in hand does not fall in the categories where cognizance of the offence can be taken by the court and the accused can be asked to face trial. In our considered opinion, the entire case projects a civil dispute and nothing else. Therefore, invoking the principle laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), we quash the proceedings initiated at the instance of the 8th respondent and set aside the order negativing the prayer for discharge of the accused persons. The prosecution initiated against the petitioners stands quashed.