1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 99 of 2022
1. Shabdsharan Sahu S/o Pritam Lal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Behar, Police Station Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Premi Sahu S/o Pritam Lal Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village
Behar, Police Station-Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Home
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava
Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Superintendent of Police, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Shri Narendra Banjara, Tahsildar/ Executive Magistrate, Tahsil
Office Arang, District- Raipur, Presently Posted As Deputy
Collector, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, District :
Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
4. Shri Lekhdhar Diwan, Station House Officer, P.S.- Arang, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. Shri Trilok Pradhan Sub Inspector Police, P.S. Arang, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6. Deepak Soni S/o Late Shri Dhannu Lal Soni Aged About 51 Years
R/o Suman Colony Baihar, Tahsil - Arang, District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. T.K. Jha Advocate
For State/Respondents : Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Additional Advocate
General.
For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate.
2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey , Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
30.04 .202 4
1. Heard Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard
Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing for the State/respondents and Mr. Sudeep Johri, learned
counsel, appearing for the respondent No.6.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the
following prayers:
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for the entire records relating to this case.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to allow the petition and set aside the order dated
28.06.2021 (Annexure P/4) and grant compensation of
Rs. 10 lakh to each of the petitioners for illegal
detention.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to allow the petition and direct the necessary suitable
actions against Narendra Banjare the then Tahsildar /
Executive Magistrate Arang (Respondent No. 3) and
police officer Lekhdhar Diwan (respondent No.4).
3
10.4 That any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper together with cost of the
petition.”
3. The facts of the present case as per the petitioners are that there
was some property dispute between the petitioners and respondent
No. 6, the petitioners have made a complaint to the Collector,
Raipur on 28.05.2020 alleging that respondent No. 6 has violated
the conditions of lockdown order. After passing of one year,
Tahsildar – Narendra Banjara (respondent No.3) came on
28.06.2021 for spot inspection and falsely got registered a criminal
case under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioners. The
Station House Officer (Respondent No.4) arrested the petitioners
but did not produce them before the Executive Magistrate
(Respondent No.3), however, the respondent No. 3 wrote a false
order sheet that the petitioners had refused to sign the order sheet.
The respondent No. 4 sent the petitioners for medical examination
at about 9:25 P.M. and directed them to send to Central Jail,
Raipur, where they were lodged at about 10:30 P.M.. After
complaint by the father of the petitioners, the respondent No. 4
released the petitioners on 07.07.2021.
4. The information supplied by the police under the RTI Act shows that
the time of arrest of petitioner No. 1 at 06:05 P.m. whereas the
information supplied by Tahsil Office shows the time of arrest at
4
7:25 p.m. likewise, the information supplied by the police under RTI
act show that petitioner No. 2 was arrest at 06:00 p.m. whereas the
information supplied by Tahsil Office shows that the time of arrest
was at 07:20 p.m. The respondent No. 3 and 5 malafidely arrested
the petitioners, they were not produced before the Executive
Magistrate and they also manipulated the official record. The illegal
detention is violative of the Constitutional right of the petitioners.
5. It is further submitted by the petitioners that they are entitled to get
compensation for their wrongful detention as the Supreme Court
has awarded appropriate compensation to the persons compelled
to face humiliation for wrongful detention in violation of Article 21 of
The Constitution of India. Hence, this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Police had
never produced the petitioners before Tahsildar / Executive
Magistrate Narendra Banjara, who wrote false order sheet dated
28.06.2021. He submits that from perusal of the medical
documents, it is clear that the petitioners were examined in the
government hospital at 09:20 and 09:30 p.m., therefore, there was
no question of producing them before the Executive Magistrate in
the night. He further submits that the entry of petitioners in the jail
shows at 10:35 p.m. on 28.06.2021, which is also needs to be
enquired as to why the innocent persons were lodged in jail in the
night. He also submits that the timing of arrest of the petitioners is
5
different from the information supplied by the Police Station, Arang
and Tahsil Office, Arang, therefore, it is gross violation of
fundamental right of petitioners. As such, the writ petition deserves
to be allowed and the respondents authorities may be directed to
pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to each the
petitioners for mental harassment and illegal detention from
28.06.2021 to 07.07.2021. He places reliance upon the judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. R.S. Gupta, reported in LAWS (ALL) 2002 8 63.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Additional
Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State submits
that the the allegation levelled by the petitioners are entirely false
and preposterous and are contrary to the record. The preventive
action was taken against the petitioners under Section 151 and
Section 107, 116(3) of the Cr.P.C. In view of the acts and conduct of
the petitioners, the action was taken on the complaint received from
the Tehsildar, Arang and due procedure was followed by the
authorities. There has been no malafide or illegal act on the part of
the said authorities. The petitioners were sent behind the bar under
the judicial order passed by the learned Magistrate. The custody of
the petitioners were judicial custody and cannot be named or
termed as illegal detention. He further submits that the judicial order
cannot violate the fundamental right of the petitioners and against
the judicial order, a writ petition in nature of criminal under Article
6
226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and liable to be
dismissed.
8. Mr. Sudeep Johri, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 6
endorses the submission of learned State counsel.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records of the case.
10. In R.S. Gupta (supra), the Supreme Court has held as follows:
“ 13. …………………..Nemo judex in causa sua, that
is, no man shall be a judge in his own cause, is a
principle firmly established in law. Justice should not
only be done but should manifestly be seen to be
done. It is on this principle that the proceedings in
Court of law are open to the public except in those
cases where for special reason the law requires or
authorizes a hearing in camera. Justice can never be
seen to be done if a man acts as a judge in his own
cause or is himself interested in its outcome. The
principle applied not only to judicial proceedings but
also to quashi-judical and administrative
proceedings…………..In Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors
v. State of Haryana and Ors, (1985) 4 SCC 417, a 5
judges Bench of the Apex Court held as follows :
…………………….It is one of the fundamental
7
principles of our jurisprudence that no man can be a
judge in his own cause and that if there is reasonable
likelihood of bias it is “in accordance with natural
justice and common sense that the justice likely to be
so biased should be incapacitated from sitting”. The
question is not whether there is a real likelihood of
bias. What is objectionable in such a case is not that
the decision is actually tainted with bias but that the
circumstances are such as to create a reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the others that there is
likelihood of bias affecting the decision. The basis
principle underlying this Rule is that justice must not
only be done but must also appear to be done and this
Rule has received wife recognition in several decisions
of this Court. It is also important to note that this Rule
is not confined to cases where judicial power stricto
sensu is exercised.”
11. The petitioners have sought compensation for wrongful detention
and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India has awarded appropriate compensation to the
persons compelled to face humiliation for wrongful detention. The
word ’harassment’ has been dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Mehmood Nayyar Azam V. State of Chhattisgarh,
reported in 2012(8) SCC 1 in para 22 as under :
8
“22. At this juncture, it becomes absolutely necessary to
appreciate what is meant by the term “harassment”. In P.
Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon, Second Edition, the term
“harass” has been defined, thus: -
12. “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. ”
13. From above discussion, in the light of the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.S. Gupta (supra) and
the provision of law, it is quite vivid that no man can be a judge of
his own cause as the Tehsildar himself has lodged a complaint to
the Police Station against the petitioners and himself send them
into judicial custody and the petitioners were arrested by the Police
at night and sent them to judicial custody, without producing them
before the Court of Executive Magistrate. The above facts clearly
reveal that the right of life and liberty of the petitioners enshrined
9
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated,
therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get appropriate
compensation. As such, we deem it appropriate to award
compensation of Rs.25,000/- to each of the petitioners, and same
shall be payable by the State Government to the petitioners within
a period of 30 days from today. Ordered accordingly.
14. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this writ petition
stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Hem