MONICA KUMAR & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 550, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
A 
B 
c 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 550 
MONICA KUMAR & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 27 of2012) 
AUGUST 08, 2017 
[A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ,) 
Police Reforms - Misconduct by Police officials - Rights of 
citizens - Writ Petition u/Art.32 of the Constitution - According to 
Petitioners, they had some issues with the Chairman of a medical 
college and that Police acting under his influence had harassed 
them - Pursuant thereto, Court issued notice in the writ petition 
and ordered dasti service to the unserved respondents - Following 
the direction, the petitioners went to serve notice upon the SHO, 
but were assaulted by the police officials - Petitioners filed 
D complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, who refused to 
accept the same - Against this, Petitioners filed an application in 
the pending writ petition - Writ petition was dismissed with direc-
tion to approach High Court u/Art.226 - High Court dismissed it 
with liberty to the petitioners to file application uls.156(3) - Order 
E of High Court was challenged by Petitioners by filing SLP- Supreme 
Court directed inquiry in the matter - Conduct of the police 
officials was found to be blemished - Supreme Court directed 
initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned police 
officials - Immediately thereafter. Police officials went to the place 
of the petitioners, to put pressure on them to withdraw their cases; 
F 
and one policeman again assaulted the petitioners and
filed FIR 
against them u/ss. 324,33213531504 JPC - Held: Police needs to be 
sensitized about the rights of citizens and the civilised manner in 
which police is required to maintain law and order - Training of 
police is required so that use of force on citizens is reduced and 
G Police officials become more sensitive towards them and fulfill their 
role as protector of citizens - There is also a need to deal with 
erring police officials by taking stern measures whose actions amount 
to 'misconduct' or may be 'criminal' in nature - Letting off the 
erring officials by only administering a warning may not be 
appropriate as done in instant case - Besides the conduct of police 
H 
550
MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
551 
officials, version of the petitioners was also found to be 
A 
exaggerated, regarding the incident when police had visited and 
assaulted them, therefore, suspension of police officials not directed 
- However, after assessing the situation, the FIR filed against the 
petitioners quashed and direction issued io provide adequate 
protection to them. 
Disposing of the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. Police needs to be sensitised about the rights of 
citizens and the civilised manner in which police is required to 
maintain law and order in this country. From time to time, various 
.sugg~stions have been given by National Crime Records Bureau, 
National Police Commission as well as certain NGOs like Human 
Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Commonwealth Human 
Rights Initiative, etc. to bring in reforms in terms of amendments 
in Indian Police Act, appointing commissions to deal with cases 
B 
c 
of police brutalities, etc. Not that efforts are lacking in bringing 
police reform. But the humane face of the police is still to be D 
seen. Police officials falling in this category are far and few. It is 
high time that training of police in this direction is given a concrete 
shape so that it brings about positive results, and the usage of 
force on citizens is reduced and police officials become more 
sensitive towards them and fulfill their role as the protector of E 
citizens. The Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU)
has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the 
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to develop a new 
online advance programme on human rights for the police 
personnel. It is also intended to update the contents of the basic 
trainers' programme for police personnel. It is hoped that IGNOU 
with NHRC would be able to develop requisite programme of 
high quality which would be able to sensitise the police personnel. 
Further, the training under this programme shall be administered 
to the stake holders in great measures. In this conte~t, there is 
also a need to deal with erring police officials by taking stern 
measures whose actions amount to •misconduct' or may even be 
•criminal' in nature. Letting these erring officials lightly, as has 
been done in the instant case, by only administering a warning 
may not be appropriate. [Para 24] (568-E-G; 569-A-C] 
F 
G 
H
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
2. When this Court ordered departmental inquiry against 
the erring officials, the Disciplinary Authority dealt with the matter 
in a lukewarm fashion by sparing those officials with a warning 
only. It seems that too was done just to complete the formalities 
as there was a direction by this Court for taking an action against 
B them but for that, no action would have been taken by the 
Disciplinary Authority. Thus, atrocity committed by the police 
on the hapless citizens is brushed aside lightly. In contrast, 
incident of spraying pepper by a lady, faced with the situation 
when police officers had come to their premises and were 
threatening them to withdraw the cases coupled with slap given 
C to her as well as her brother, is taken so seriously that not only 
FIR is lodged but chargesheet is also filed within ten days. 
Likewise, insofar as act of writing apology is concerned, maybe it 
was not extracted by putting any pressure. However, the very 
fact that the petitioners were taken to the police station and were 
D in an atmosphere of fear that surrounded there, when this letter 
was written is sufficient to hold that it was not a voluntary act of 
the petitioners. No credence can be given to such a letter. Both 
the petitioners are Doctors by profession. The entire attempt is 
ti! put a pressure of another kind, once the police have found 
that their threats to the petitioners to withdraw the cases have 
E 
not proved
successful. [Para 19[ [567-C-F[ 
3. (i) In the aforesaid circumstances, the prayer of the 
petitioners in this writ petition is accepted so far as it relates to 
quashing the proceedings arising out of FIR dated December 
20, 2011 and the chargesheet dated January 2, 2012 filed pursuant 
F 
thereto. It is ordered accordingly. 
(ii) Since, version of the petitioners in respect of incident 
of December 20, 2011,when the (:;)lice officials had gone to the 
place of the petitioners to put pressure on the petitioners to 
withdraw their cases, is found to be exaggerated, it is not proper 
G to direct respondent No. 1 to suspend respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 
(iii) Also, respondent No. 1 is directed to provide an 
adequate protection to the petitioners after assessing the situation 
and to ensure that petitioners are not harassed or threatened by 
the police officials in any manner. [Paras 20-221 [567-G-H; 568-
H A-Bl
MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC. 
746 : (1993) 2 SCR 581; Ruda/ Shah v. State of Bihar 
(1983) 4 SCC 141 : [1983) 3 SCR 508; Joginder Kumar 
v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) 4 SCC 260; D.K. Basu 
v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 : [1996) 10 
Suppl. SCR 284; Anita Thakur & Ors. v. Government 
of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (2016) 15 SCC 525 -
referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[1993) 2 SCR 581 
referred to 
Para 23 
[1983) 3 SCR 508 
referred to 
Para 23 
(1994) 4 sec 260 
referred to 
Para 23 
[1996) 10 Suppl. SCR 284 
referred to 
Para 23 
(2016) 15 sec 525 
referred to 
Para 23 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition 
(Criminal) No. 27 of2012. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia 
Prashant Bhushan, Devesa Kumar Agnihotri, Pranav Sachdeva, 
Advs. for the Petitioners. 
D. K. Singh, Ardendumauli Kumar Prasad, Ms. Koma! Mundhra, 
Satrrabh Agrawal, Abhisth Kumar, Shibashish Misra, Kuna! Verma, Advs. 
553 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
for the Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
· A.K. SIKRI, J. I. This case depicts sordid state of affairs about 
the functioning of Police and demonstrates that much police reforms are 
still needed. The events that have occurred in this case which have 
G 
forced the petitioners to approach this Court directly by filing instant 
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia show that proper 
police training with emphasis on sensitising them
about the rights of the 
citizens is required. 
H
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
2. The present petition has its genesis in the incident that occurred 
on May 28, 2009. Rather, it goes a little earlier in point of time. The 
petitioners who are siblings did their MBBS course in the Santosh Medical 
College at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. They had certain issues with P. 
Mahalingam, Chairman of the Maharaji Educational Trust which has 
B established the aforesaid medical college. In order to redress their 
grievances, they filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 33 of 2009 in this 
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In the said writ 
petition, they had complained of the harassment meted out to them by 
the said Chairman as well as by the police which was acting under the 
influence of the said Chairman. On May 13, 2009, the Court issued 
C notice in the writ petition. An order was passed by the Registrar of this 
Court on May 22, 2009 directing service of dasti notice on the unserved 
respondents which included SHO of Police Station, Sector-39, Noida, 
Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh who was arrayed as respondent 
No. 4 in the writ petition. In order to serve the notice upon the SHO, the 
. D petitioners went to the Police Station on May 28, 2009 at I 0:30 am. The 
SHO and his subordinates started brutally assaulting the petitioners with 
lathis, shoes and fists and caused numerous injuries on all parts of their 
bodies. The petitioners got themselves examined at Lok Nayak 
Government Hospital,
New Delhi and an x-ray of petitioner No. I was 
also taken which disclosed a fracture. A plaster was put on her left 
E hand. The petitioners made a written complaint to the Senior 
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Noida on May 29, 2009 itself. However, 
he refused to accept the complaint. Against this apathy and inaction on 
the part of SSP in not agreeing to register the case, the petitioners filed 
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 9226 of2009 in the aforesaid writ 
F petition. Order was passed in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition that 
the same be placed along with the main matter. It is also observed that 
in the meantime, the petitioners may approach the District Magistrate, 
Noida regarding their grievances. The petitioners approached the District 
Magistrate, Noida, but they were informed that he was on vacation. 
The City Magistrate, however, called the petitioners to his office and 
G took the video recorded statements but did not do anything in the matter. 
H 
On July 20, 2009, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 
33 of 2009 and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the High 
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if so advised. 
Thereafter, the petitioners filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 23839 of
MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
555 
[ A.K. SIKRI, J.] 
2009 in the High Court praying inter alia for a CBI inquiry into the A 
·incident which took place on May 28, 2009 when the petitioners had 
gone to serve dasti summons on respondent No. 4. The High Court, 
however, held in the impugned order that in this case, the FIR had not 
been registered and there was no question for considering any prayer 
for CBI inquiry at this stage and instead directed that the petitioners 
B 
may file an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 and in case any such application is filed, the Magistrate 
may pass appropriate orders thereon. With the aforesaid observations, 
the High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
3. This order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Special 
Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 666 of2010, which became Criminal Appeal 
C 
No. 2323 of2011 after the leave was granted in that matter. The interim 
direction dated May 11, 20 I 0 was given by the Court, after hearing the 
counsel for the parties, whereby the District and Sessions Judge, Gautam 
Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh was directed to inquire into the incident of 
May 28, 2009, when the petitioners had gone to serve the dasti summons D 
·of this Court to the SHO of Police Station Gautam Budh Nagar. The 
District and Sessions Judge assigned the inquiry to Additional Chief 
Judicial Magistrate-Ill. He conducted the necessary inquiry and submitted 
his report dated
November 16, 2010. Finding truth in the allegations 
made by the petitioners that they were mercilessly beaten up and thrashed 
by the police officials, objections to this report were allowed to be filed 
E 
by the respondents, which were filed. Matter was heard thereafter and 
this Court decided Criminal Appeal No. 2323 of2011 by detailed order 
dated December 16, 2011 accepting the report of the Additional Chief 
Judicial Magistrate. Since as per that report, conduct of some police 
officers were found to be blemished which also amounted to misconduct 
F 
in performance of their duties, this Court directed the State of Uttar 
Pradesh/Disciplinary Authority to treat the report of the Additional Chief 
Judicial Magistrate as a preliminary report and initiate disciplinary 
proceedings against the concerned police personnel. Petitioners were 
also given liberty to file criminal complaint under Section 200 of the 
.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of conclusion in the said 
G 
. 
. 
report. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the aforesaid 
judgment dated December 16, 2011 passed by this Court which also 
captures the conclusion of the inquiry conducted by the Additional Chief 
Judicial Magistrate as well: 
H
556 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
"7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we passed 
orders on l l.05.20 l 0 directing the District and Sessions Judge, 
Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., to enquire into the incident of 
28.05.2009 when the appellants had gone to serve the dasti 
summons of this Court and pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 
11.05.20 l 0, the District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, 
U.P., assigned the inquiry to the Additional Chief Judicial 
Magistrate III of Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., who after 
conducting the enquiry has submitted the report dated 
16.11.20 IO. We have considered the objections to the report 
and heard learned counsel for the parties. The conclusions in 
the report dated 16.11.2010 of the Additional- Chief Judicial 
Magistrate III of Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., are extracted 
hereinbelow: 
"l. Ms. Monica Kumar and Shri Manish Kumar had gone to 
Sector 39 Police Station in NO IDA on 28.05.2009 for serving a 
dasti notice ofHon'ble 6 Supreme Court upon Shri Anil Samania, 
Station House Officer, Sector 39 Police Station in NOIDA. 
2. Ms. Monica Kumar and Shri Manish Kumar were subjected 
to brutality in Sector 39 Police Station, NOIDA by Shri Anil 
Samania, Inspector, Shri J.K. Gangwar, Sub Inspector and few 
Constables. 
3. Tailored entries have been made on 28.05.2009 in the General 
Diary of the Police Station for cover up. 
4. The complaint in the matter was made with serious allegations 
against Shri Anil
Samania but the complaint was not dealt with 
F 
properly and the matter was given a decent burial. 
5. The Sub-Inspector, In-Charge of the Complaint Cell in the 
office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh 
Nagar, Shri Rishi Pal Singh, failed in his duty to place the 
complaint before the higher authorities for proper action in the 
G 
matter. 
6. The Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Gautam Budh Nagara, 
Shri Ajay Sahdav, failed in his supervisory duty in as much as 
without perusal of the accusations in the complaint and the action 
taken/required thereon, allowed entombment of the grievance 
H 
in the complaint.
MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
557 
[A.K. SIKRI, J.] 
7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Bagar A 
Shri Ashok Kumar Singh appears to have shut his eyes to what 
had happened in the Police Station on 28.05.2009. 
8. Involvement of Dr. P. Mahalingam in the incident on 
28.05.2009 could not be established. Thus, it cannot be said that 
the complainants were packed down at the will of the Chairman 
B 
ofSantosh Medical College, Ghaziabad, Shri P. Mahalingam." 
8. Thus, the conclusions in the report dated 16.11.2010 of the 
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate quoted above are that the 
appellants were subjected to brutality in Sector 39 Police Station, 
NO IDA, by Inspector Anil Samania (Respondent No.4), Shri J.K. c 
Gangwar, Sub-Inspector and few constables and tailored entries 
were made on 28.05.2009 in the General Diary of the Police Station 
for a cover up and when a complaint was made to the Senior 
Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., the Sub-
Inspector, In-charge of the Complaint Cell Shri Rishipal Singh 
failed in his duty to place the complaint before the higher authorities D 
for proper action in the matter. The further conclusion in the report 
dated 16.11.2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is 
. that the Superintendent of Police (Traffic), GautamBudh Nagar, 
U.P., Ajay Sahdav, failed in his supervisory duty and allowed 
entombment of the gri~:vance in the complaint and the Senior E 
Superintendent of Police,
Gautam Budh Nagar, Ashok Kumar 
Singh appears to have shut his eyes to what had happened in the 
Police Station on 28.05.2009. The conclusions in the report dated 
16.11.2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate prima facie · 
establish acts and/or omissions of the various police personnel 
which were committed when the appellants had gone 8 to the 
F 
police station to serve the dasti summons issued by this Court and 
which amount to misconduct of serious nature. We, therefore, 
direct the respondent No. I to treat the report dated 16.11.2010 of 
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III of Gautam Budh Na gar, 
U.P., as a preliminary report and initiate disciplinary proceedings 
G 
against the police personnel named in the conclusions thereof and 
conduct the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the 
relevant rules, giving to the police personnel reasonable opportunity 
· of being heard in respect of the charges as provided in the Rules 
H
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
and in Article 311(2) of the Constitution and complete the 
disciplinary proceedings within one year from today. 
9. It will also be open for the appellants to file criminal complaint 
under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of the conclusions in 
the report dated 16.11.2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial 
B 
Magistrate III of Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., before the appropriate 
Magistrate for prosecuting only those police personnel who are 
alleged to have committed any offence, and if such a complaint is 
filed, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law. 
10. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the 
c 
appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs." 
4. The aforesaid facts are stated as background facts to understand 
the reason for filing the present petition by the petitioners predicated on 
subsequent events that would be noticed hereinafter. Jn order to complete 
the narration of this prologue, we would also like to mention that on the 
D directions of this Court contained in its aforesaid judgment dated 
December 16, 2011, the Government of Uttar Pradesh had initiated 
disciplinary proceedings against the police officers who were indicted 
by the judicial inquiry for having committed brutalities on the petitioners. 
Inquiry was conducted and the conduct of the officers was found to be 
coloured with blemish. Thus, even in the disciplinary proceedings, incident 
E of May 28, 2009
was found proved against these police officers. This 
Court, however, is dismayed to find that for this serious misconduct, the 
police officers were let off by extending warning/admonition. 
F 
5. With this prologue, we now advert to the facts which are the 
immediate cause of filing the present petition. 
6. As mentioned above, on December 16, 2011, this Court passed 
the orders directing disciplinary proceedings against faulty police officers 
which included respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As per the petitioners, within 
four days of the passing of the judgment i.e. on December 20, 2011 at 
about 3 pm, the petitioners came to their home in Ghaziabad from Noida 
G and were stopped by the policemen in front of their house. A police jeep 
with about five policemen came and stopped their car just behind the 
petitioners' car. Then, these policemen came down from their car and 
started abusing the petitioners and pressurised them to withdraw all cases 
against Mr. Anil Samania, respondent No. 2 and Dr. P. Mahalingam. 
H The police even threatened them with serious consequences if they did
MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
559 
[ A.K. SIKRI, J.] 
not withdraw the cases. ·The petitioners were slapped also. The police A 
even came inside the petitioners house forcing their way through the 
main gate, abusing and threatening them. The petitioners ran inside 
their house and closed the doors. After sometime, 15-20 policemen 
inqluding respondent No. 3/SHO ofVijay Nagar Police Station Mr. Anil 
Kumar came to the petitioners home. The SHO along with many 
B 
.polic~men forced entry into the house of the petitioners by breaking the 
main and entry iron gates and wooden double doors of their house and 
barged inside the house. The SHO slapped the petitioners and dragged 
them outside their house and threw them in the police jeep. The police 
brought the petitioners to the Vijay Nagar Police Station. Further, the 
police (SHO) abused the petitioners and told them to withdraw all cases C 
against the police - Mr. Anil Samania, others and Dr. Mahalingam and 
not to file anymore case. The police told the petitioners to see what they 
do if the petitioners keep on fighting with the police and said that they 
will detain the petitioners whole night and put attempted murder charges 
on them. Later in the night, the SHO called the petitioners into his cabin D 
and told that he will only release them after they write an apology letter 
otherwise he will sent the petitioners to jail. They had no other option 
except to write an apology letter. The petitioners were
detained in the 
Vijay Nagar Police Station until about 11 pm in the night. During this 
period, the police repeatedly kept on abusing and threatening them. The 
petitioners were released with the warning from the SHO that they see 
E 
'an end to all matters and compromise with Mr. Anil Samania and others 
and not make any more complaints/file any case against the police. The 
petitioners came to know on January 31, 2012 that an FIR and 
chargesheet has been filed against the petitioners under Sections 324/ 
332/353/504 IPC. It is aileged that the Investigating Officer of the case 
F 
has wrongly and malafidely conducted the investigation. The police 
have hurriedly submitted the chargesheet within ten days. The IO has 
not even taken statements of the petitioners contrary to what he is stating 
that he has taken the statements of the petitioners. 
·7. This chargesheet against the petitioners disclosed the version 
of the other side. It is alleged that petitioners had parked their vehicle in 
G 
the middle of the road near Santosh Medical College which was causing 
obstruction in running of traffic on that road. It is stated that Annual 
Function was also going on in the College at that time and when traffic 
got stuck and high traffic jam was seen by the police patrolling party on 
H
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A duty, in order to maintain the law and order of that area, Constable Om 
Prakash, Batch No. 227 and Constable Dhruv Kumar, Batch No. 1895 
and Head Constable Brij Kishore Sharma, Batch No. 288 had request\!d 
petitioner No. 1 to park the car in a proper manner so that it could not 
obstruct the traffic on the road. Petitioner No. 1 got annoyed and started 
B arguing with Head Constable Brij Kishore Sharma in a very abusive 
manner. In the meanwhile, petitioner No. 1 went inside the house and 
called petitioner No. 2 and she also came along with pepper spray in her 
hands. On exhortation of her brother i.e. petitioner No. 2, petitioner No. 
I sprayed the pepper in the eyes of the Head Constable Brij Kishore 
Sharma. On that mishappening, the fellow duty Constable, namely, 
C Constable Om Prakash and Constable Dhruv Kumar handled the Head 
Constable Brij Kishore and immediately rushed to the Medi Max Hospital, 
Sector - 12, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P. and admitted the Head 
Constable Brij Kishore Sharma in a critical condition. Thereafter, 
Constable Om Prakash lodged a FIR of the above incident, which was 
D registered as FIR No. 609 of2011 under Sections 324, 332/353/504 IPC 
dated December 20, 2011. 
8. On coming to know of the aforesaid FIR and the chargesheet 
filed pursuant thereto, present writ petition dated February 16, 2012 is 
filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: 
E 
"(i) Issue appropriate writ
directing respondent No. I to take 
appropriate action and punish the police - respondent Nos. 2 and 
3 for assaulting/detaining/registering a false case against the 
petitioners and causing contempt of the Court and interfering with 
the course of justice. 
F 
(ii) Issue appropriate writ direct an independent investigation into 
the incident of December 20, 2011 by the CBI or SIT. 
(iii) Issue appropriate writ quashing the FIR No. 609 of 2011 dated 
December 20, 2011 and chargesheet No. 953 of 2011 dated 
January 2, 2012 filed against them. 
G 
(iv) Issue appropriate writ directing the State ofU.P. to provide 
the petitioners protection as they are under immense and constant 
threat. 
(v) Issue appropriate writ restraining the respondents and police 
from causing the petitioners any further harassments, assaults 
H 
and threats to them.
MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
561 
[A.K. SIKRI, J.] 
(vi) Issue appropriate writ directing respondent No. 1 to suspend A 
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and also those indicted by the judicial 
inquiry pending disciplinary proceedings. 
(vii) To pass such other orders or directions as this Court may 
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present 
case." 
B 
9. Show cause notice in this petition was issued pursuant thereto. 
Respondents have put in appearance and they have filed their reply 
·affidavits, refuting the allegations made in the petition. Respondents 
have stuck to their versions on the incident of December 20, 2011 which 
has already been stated above. 
c 
10. In view of the aforesaid conflicting versions about the 
occurrence on December 20, 2011, this Court after hearing the counsel 
for the parties, passed order dated July 5, 2016 directing the District and 
Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad to nominate a Judicial Officer to hold an 
inquiry into the said incident by following an appropriate procedure in D 
consonance with the principles of natural justice and submit his/her report. 
We would like to reproduce the said orders in its entirety hereunder: 
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused 
the record. 
This Court vide its order dated 16.12.2011, directed the 
E 
Government ofUttar Pradesh to initiate disciplinary proceedings 
against respondent nos. 2 & 3 for having committed brutalities on 
the petitioners. We
find that respondent no. 3, accompanied by 
several police officials, visited the petitioners at their home in· 
Ghaziabad on 20.12.2011 at about 03.00 p.m., forced them to 
F 
withdraw all cases against the police, assaulted them and threatened 
to encounter them. It is alleged that the police dragged the 
petitioners outside their house, threw them in the police jeep, 
brought them to the Vijay Nagar Police Station and detained them 
in the Police Station till 11.00 p.m. During this period the police 
repeatedly kept on abusing and threatening the petitioners. G 
Respondent no. 3 released the petitioners after he got apology 
letter forcibly signed by the petitioners. It is further alleged that a 
false criminal case was also registered against the petitioners on 
the very same day to pressurize them. The petitioners reported 
the said incident in written complaint dated 22.12.2011 to the H
562 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
Director General of Police, Lucknow, on which, till date, no action 
has been taken. 
In view of the above, we feel that a prima facie case is made 
out by the petitioners for conducting an inquiry into the alleged 
incident that took place on 20.12.2011 in order to find out as to 
whether the version of the petitioners herein is correct and if any 
false FIR is lodged against them on the basis of whi ch a 
chargesheet has been filed in the court. 
We, accordingly, direct the learned District and Sessions Judge, 
Ghaziabad to nominate a Judicial Officer, preferably of the rank 
of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, to hold an inquiry into the 
said incident by following an appropriate procedure in consonance 
with the principles of natural justice. The concerned officer shall 
make an endeavour to complete the inquiry within the period of 
three months and submit his/her report to this Court before the 
next date of hearing. 
List the matter on 07.11.2016." 
11. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad conducted 
the inquiry and forwarded his report in a sealed cover. It was opened in 
the Court on November 7, 2016 and direction was given to the Registry 
E of the Court to supply a copy of the said report to all the parties. 
12. None of the parties have filed any objection to this report. 
13. Perusal of the report shows that the Inquiring Officer recorded 
the statements of various persons including the
petitioners who stuck to 
th~ir versions of the incident. Statements of the parents of the petitioners 
F were also recorded. The Inquiring Officer, thereafter, recorded the 
statements of many police officials and certain other independent persons/ 
witnesses who had seen the occurrence on December 20, 2011 and also 
those who were privy to the happenings when the petitioners were taken 
to the Police Station on that day and had written the purported apology 
G letter. The report further reveals that the concerned Judicial Officer 
focused on two incidents which took place on the fateful day. First 
incident was about the altercation which took place over the alleged 
parking of the car by the petitioners. Second incident has been divided 
into two parts - first part pertains to the spray of pepper in the eyes of 
the Constable. According to the petitioners, the police officials had come 
H
MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
563 
[A.K. SIKRI, J.] 
to their house and threatened to withdraw the cases when pepper was A 
sprayed on Constable whereas version of the police officials was that it 
was an unprovoked attack on one of the Constables. Second facet of 
the second incident relates to happenings in the Police Station where the 
petitioners had written their apology. 
14. Insofar as the first incide.nt is concerned, the Judicial Officer B 
in its categorical finding accepts the version of the petitioners and has 
concluded as under: 
"Looking into the probability of cross versions and evidence laid 
down by the parties thereto, keeping in view the earlier complaints 
against the police made by the complainants the versions ofEW 1 c 
· and EW 2 regarding first incident of abusing and threatening and 
accepted spray of obnoxious chilly spray. It is also observed that 
there was sufficient space as has been shown in the site plan of 
the place of occurrence annexed with this report through which 
the police vehicle was in a position to go ahead without making D 
much hue and cry in the name of blockade of traffic. 
Taking into account all the fact and circumstances cumulatively, 
it transpires that there is no reason to disbelieve the complainants 
_versions supported by EW 3 and EW 4. Thus, it is concluded that 
the complainants version, regarding first incident appears to be 
correct and believable." 
E 
15. On the second incident, the findings are
that there was 
unauthorised entry into the house of the petitioners. At the same time, 
version of the petitioners is found to be exaggerated. The report records: 
"Two private witnesses, Hemant and Ajay Kumar (EW 20 and 
F 
· EW 21) have stated on oath that about 3.30 pm on 20'h December 
2011 he had seen some police personnel knocking at the main iron 
gate of the complainants and none was coming out from the house 
of the complainants to open the main gate. After 45 minutes one 
of the police personnel climbed on the boundary wall of the 
complainants house and went inside and opened the main h'on 
G 
gate and police personnel entered into the premises of complainants 
after bearing helmets to avoid any obnoxious spray. They entered 
in the house of complainants, caught hold Manish Kumar and 
came out of the house. Complainant Monica Kumar followed 
H
564 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
Manish Kumar. The police went from the spot along with Monica 
and Manish Kumar. 
The statements ofEW 9, EW 12, EW 15, EW 20 and EW 21 
reveal the following factual aspects: 
(i)About4.30-5.00 pm on201h December2011 police personnel 
have climbed over the boundary wall of the house of the 
complainants i.e. K-8, Pratap Vihar, Vijay Nagar and entered 
the main gate of the complainants to make entry in the premises 
of the complainants i.e. they did not climb over the roofof the 
complainants. Thus, the fact of climbing up over the roof of 
the complainants of police personnel is exaggeration of the 
complainants. 
(ii) The police, during investigation had entered into the house of 
the complainants against their will but not broken the wooden 
doors of the complainants house. Thus, breaking of main gate 
and wooden doors of the complainants house is exaggeration 
of the complainants. However, it appears to be true that Manish 
Kumar was caught hold by the police personnel against his 
will. 
(iii) The chilly spray bottle was recovered from the possession of 
the Monica Kumar at about 4.30-5.00 pm at her house. 
(iv) Both the complainants were not only asked to appear before 
IO of PS Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad rather they were forcibly 
brought to police station in the police jeep. 
(v) Complainants were not dragged by using force to bring them 
F 
to police station in the second incident. Thus, the facts,
circumstances, time and place of first phase of the second 
incident which happened in the house of the complainants 
appears to be true upto some extent." 
16. Dealing with the first facet of the second incident, viz. spraying 
G of the pepper, the findings are that spraying of pepper is admitted by the 
petitioners themselves. It is also recorded that they had written the 
apology of their own and they were not forced or compelled to do so. 
The Inquiring Officer, at the end of his report, has recorded his conclusions 
in the following manner: 
H
·-···---
MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
[A.K. SIKRI, J.] 
"CONCLUSION 
From the statements ofEWs on oath and complaint made by the 
: complainants to Director General of Police, following concl_usions may 
be ea8ily drawn: 
565 
A 
(i) Only one slap was made by one police wala on the body of 
both the complainants in the campus of their house not inside B 
the closed room. 
(ii) There was no instant danger of transgression to the body of 
Monica Kumar justifying her to spray liquid chilly in the eye of 
police personnel. 
(iii) Complainants were already engaged in several rounds of cases/ 
complaints against police in subordinate courts and in the 
Supreme Court. 
c 
(iv) In second round incident policemen had come in only one 
police jeep, it means they were not 20-25 in numbers. The 
D 
number of police personnel appears to be exaggerated and 
varying in complainants statements and statements of EW 20 
andEW 21. 
(v) Although, complainants were taken to the police station Vijay 
Nagar in the same jeep but there is no reliable evidence that E 
they were dragged from inside their house to the police jeep. 
(vi) In the second round of incident police did not climb up to the 
roof of the complainants house or on the roof of neighbour's 
house rather one police wala entered in the campus by cros~ing 
over the boundary wall. He opened the main iron gate through 
F 
which other police personnel could enter into.the premises. 
(vii) No iron or double wooden gate was
broken. On this point 
story is exaggerated. 
(viii) Complainants were not slapped in the police station. Further 
complainants have put an exaggerated story here also. 
G 
From the statements of complainants and their parents, it 
transpires that police had certainly pressurised them to withdraw 
the cases against Anil Samania and Mahalingam. Thus, version 
of petitioners/complainants regarding 2nd set of incident despite 
H
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
certain specific exaggeration appears to be true and correct, 
however, FIR on the basis of which chargesheet has been filed 
against the petitioners also appears to be based on the true facts." 
17. When we telescope the aforesaid report into the entire 
framework, we find that the case put up by the petitioners is broadly 
B accepted though some exaggerations in their versions are found. Even 
after eschewing the exaggerations, the facts established on record are 
asunder: 
The police officials had gone to the place of the petitioners on 
December 20, 2011 i.e. immediately after the directions were given by 
c this Court in its judgment dated December 16, 2011. Purpose was to put 
pressure on the petitioners to withdraw their cases against Anil Samania 
and P. Mahalingam. While exerting the pressure, one police official had 
even slapped both the petitioners, though they were not beaten up so 
badly as asserted by the petitioners. It also demonstrates that the purpose 
of visiting the house of the petitioners was only to force them to withdraw 
D the cases and the version of the respondents that they wanted the 
petitioners to remove their car as it was blocking the road/passage has 
turned out to be a false story. Findings further reveal that these policemen 
came again though they may not be 20-25 in number as alleged by the 
petitioners. Fact remains that policemen came in one police jeep. They 
E may not have climbed up
the roof of the petitioners house. However, 
one of the policemen entered in the campus by crossing over the boundary 
wall and he opened the main iron gate through which other police 
personnel could enter into the premises. It is also established that these 
policemen took the petitioners to police station though it was not by 
F 
dragging them from inside their house to the police jeep. We also proceed 
on the basis that in the police station, the petitioners were not slapped or 
maltreated and they had written apology letter without coercion. 
I 8. When the entire incident is looked holistically, eschewing the 
exaggerated version thereof as projected by the petitioners, what emerges 
on record is that the police officers had come to the residence of the 
G petitioners; they had pressurised the petitioners to withdraw the cases; 
and while doing so, one policeman had even slapped both the petitioners. 
Using of pepper spray by petitioner No. 1 at the policeman has to be 
taken in the light of what had happened on the spot and also in the past, 
particularly on May 28, 2009 when the police officers had badly thrashed 
H
MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
567 
[A.K. SIKRI, J.] 
., 
and beaten up the petitioners. A female person would naturally, in these A 
·circumstances, feel threatened that it may not tum into a repeat of what 
had happened on May 28, 2009. !funder these circumstances, she tried 
to defend herself by warding off the policeman with the use of pepper 
spray, it cannot be said that she crossed the boundaries of self-defence. 
After all, matter has to be examined keeping in view the conduct of the 
B 
police which provoked her to react in the aforesaid manner. 
19. We also feel disturbed by another conduct of the respondents. 
With regard to the incident of May 28, 2009, when this Court ordered 
departmental inquiry against the erring officials, the Disciplinary Authority 
dealt with the matter in a lukewarm fashion by sparing those officials -c 
with a warning only. It seems that too was done just to complete the 
formalities as there was a direction by this Court_ for taking an action 
against them but for that, we are afraid, no action would have been 
taken by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, atrocity committed by the 
police on the hapless citizens is brushed aside lightly. In contrast, incident 
of spraying pepper by a lady, faced with the situation when police officers D 
had come to their premises and were threatening them to withdraw the 
cases coupled with slap given to her as well as her brother, is taken so 
seriously that not only FIR is lodged but
chargesheet is also filed within 
ten days. Likewise, insofar as act of writing apology is concerned, maybe 
it was not extracted by putting any pressure. However, the very fact 
that the petitioners were taken to the police station and were in an 
E 
atmosphere of fear that surround~d there, when this letter was written 
is sufficient to hold that it was not a voluntary act of the petitioners. No 
"'credence can be given to such a letter. Both the petitioners are Doctors 
by profession. We feel that entire attempt is to put a pressure of another 
kind, once the police have found that their threats to the petitioners to 
F 
withdraw the cases against Anil Samania and P. Mahalingam have not 
proved successfully. 
20. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are inclined to accept the 
prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition so far as it relates to quashing 
the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 609 of2011 dated December 20, 
G 
·2011 and the chargesheet No. 953 of201 l dated January 2, 2012 filed 
pursuant thereto. It ordered accordingly. 
21. Since, version of the petitioners in respect of incident of 
December 20, 2011 is found to be exaggerated, we do not deem it proper 
to direct respondent No. I to suspend respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 
H
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
22. We also direct respondent No. 1 to provide an adequate 
protection to the petitioners after assessing the situation and to ensure 
that petitioners are not harassed or threatened by the police officials in 
any manner. 
23. Before we part with, we are constrained to make certain 
B comments about the manner in which police has acted in this case by 
siding with one of the parties and, in the process, harassing the petitioners 
by its coercive behaviour. This Court has, time and again, denounced 
police brutalities which occur in various forms and the most significant 
judgments in this behalf are: 
c 
(i) 
Ni/abati Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors. 1 
(ii) 
Ruda/ Shah v. State of Bihar2 
(iii) 
Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 
(iv) D.K. Basu v. State of West Benga/4 
D 
(v) Anita Thakur & Ors. v. Government of Jammu & 
Kashmir & Ors. 5 
24. Police needs to be sensitised about the rights of citizens and 
the civilised manner in which police is required to maintain law and order 
in this country. From time to time, various suggestions have been given 
E by National Crime Records Bureau, National Police Commission as well 
as certain NGOs like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, 
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, etc. to bring in reforms in terms 
of amendments in Indian Police Act, appointing commissions to deal 
with cases of police brutalities, etc. Not that efforts are lacking in bringing 
F police
reform. But we have yet to see the humane face of the police. 
Police officials falling in this category are far and few. It is high time 
that training of police in this direction is given a concrete shape so that it 
brings about positive results, and the \!sage of force on citizens is reduced 
and police officials become more sensitive towards them and fulfill their 
role as the protector of citizens. We understand that the Indira Gandhi 
G 
H 
1 (1993) 2 sec 746 
2 (1983) 4 sec 141 
1 (1994) 4 sec 260 
'(1997) 1 SCC4l6 
'c2016) 15 sec 525
MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
569 
[A.K. SIKRI, J.] 
National Open University (IGNOU) has signed a memorandum of A 
understanding (MoU) with the National Human Rights Commission 
(NHRC) to develop a new online advance programme on human rights 
for the police personnel. It is also intended to update the contents of the 
basic trainers' programme for police personnel. We hope that IGNOU 
with NHRC would be able to develop requisite programme of high quality B 
which would be able to sensitise the police personnel. We also hope that 
the training under this programme shall be administered to the stake 
holders in &reat measures. In this context, there is also a need to deal 
with erring police officials by taking stern measures whose actions amount 
to 'misconduct' or may even be 'criminal' in nature. Letting these erring 
officials lightly, as has been done in the instant case, by only administering C 
a warning may not be appropriate. We hope that desired attention shall 
be given at the right quarters from the perspective of human rights of 
innocent and hapless citizens, so that following words of Thomas 
Bernhard's become a reality: 
"The anger and brutality against everything can readily from one D 
hour to the next, be transformed into its opposite." 
25. This writ petition stands disposed of. 
Ankit Gyan 
Writ Petition disposed ~f . 
. .