Karnataka High Court orders ₹3 lakh compensation for "grossly illegal arrest", assault of advocate by police

No arrest can be made by the police merely because it holds the power to do so unless there is sufficient justification, the Karnataka High Court recently said while ordering ₹3 lakh as compensation to a young advocate who was found to have been illegally arrested and assaulted by the police. [Kuldeep, Advocate v. State of Karnataka and ors]..The Court found that the advocate’s personal liberty was snatched away by the police without even a warrant for arrest or the registration of a first information report (FIR). It was noted further that the lawyer was threatened to give evidence against himself while in police custody. .All of this prompted Justice M Nagaprasanna to condemn the police authorities concerned for their brutal, grossly illegal and blatantly high-handed actions in the matter. The power of arrest of an accused was misused and abused in this case, the Court observed..“It is trite law that no arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police to do so. The existence of power to arrest is one thing and justification for the said exercise is another. No arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bonafides of the complaint/information, as any arrest would deny a person of his liberty, which is a very serious matter, as arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and casts a scar forever,” the Court went on to emphasise..Justice Nagaprasanna further pointed out that the acts of the police, in this case, were in contravention of the Supreme Court’s guidelines on arrest as laid down in the judgments of DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi and Satender Kumar v. CBI..“The Apex Court holds that the attitude to arrest and then proceed with the rest is despicable and has become a handy tool to police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive. The observations of the Apex Court are apt to be applied in the case at hand. The arrest of the petitioner has been in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner was compelled to face humiliation … There is flagrant violation of the mandate of the law enshrined under Sections 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C. The police can in no circumstance flout the law with such brazen proclivity,” the Court said..The High Court also expressed a note of concern over the plight of ordinary citizens if an advocate, being an officer of the courts, could be treated in this manner by the police..“Notwithstanding the petitioner being an advocate, he is illegally detained and assaulted, even after bringing it to the notice of the police that he is an advocate, an officer of the Court. If an advocate could be treated in the manner of what he has been meted out in the case at hand, a common man will not be able to bear the brunt of repetition of such treatment,” the judgment stated..From this view point as well, the Court opined that the perpetrators in this case cannot be left off the hook. Quoting Martin Luther King Jr., the Judge remarked, “injustice anywhere; is a threat to justice everywhere.”.Senior Advocate PP Hegde and advocate Ganapathi Bhat represented the petitioner-lawyer. The State authorities were represented by Additional Government Advocate M Vinod Kumar. .Lawyer was held by neck, arrested without warrant, beaten: Court told.The case concerned the arrest of a 23-year-old advocate from his home on a complaint filed by his neighbour and the subsequent assault allegedly committed on him by the arresting police personnel..On examining the case history, the High Court found that the advocate had earlier filed a complaint against the neighbour and her husband for attempting to block a path to agricultural land owned by him. The advocate had also obtained an interim injunction against his neighbours..However, a criminal complaint filed by the lawyer in the matter was closed by the police, which termed it as being a land dispute. On the same day, at around 8 pm, the police landed on the advocate’s door step to arrest him, the Court was told..The advocate submitted that the arresting police personnel had caught hold of him by the neck and not even allowed him to wear his shirt before he was dragged him to the police jeep, despite his mother’s resistance. His mother was also pushed aside in the process, the advocate complained..After taking him to the police station, the police proceeded to register a complaint by the advocate’s neighbour alleging that he had committed criminal trespass and theft by attempting to take down a gate erected by the neighbours. While in custody, the advocate was allegedly forced to write a statement to incriminate himself. Queries made by him about his arrest were met with beatings and abuse, the Court was told..The advocate later secured interim bail from a Magistrate Court, which recorded that he was ill-treated while being arrested from his house. The Magistrate also ordered action against the concerned police officer for violating the lawyer-petitioner’s personal liberty. .The advocate later filed a criminal complaint over the incident on December 9, 2022 after his release, the crime was not registered, prompting him to move the High Court for relief..The First Information Report (FIR) eventually came to be registered only on January 5, 2023, after the High Court enquired after the status of the advocate’s complaint. The said FIR named three persons, including Sub-Inspector (SI) of the Punjalkatte Police Station, Suthesh P..During the course of arguments, the petitioner’s counsel submitted electronic evidence, including a CD and photographs of the alleged torture meted out by the police. After perusing the same, the Court remarked,.“… what would unmistakably emerge is the arrest of the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court rendered from time to time, regarding necessity of arrest of the kind, qua the offences alleged against the petitioner.”.The State, however, denied the allegations of custodial abuse, while urging for the dismissal of the petition..Court orders departmental inquiry, no revocation of suspension of accused.The facts of the case led the Court to begin its judgment by referring to the popular quote, “When the State or its agents fear the people there is LIBERTY; when the people fear the State or its agents, there is TYRANNY.”.Having found serious lapses on the part of the police, the High Court ordered the initiation of a departmental enquiry against the accused SI and his cohorts or any other officer found to be involved in the advocate’s illegal arrest and alleged assault. .The departmental inquiry must be initiated within two weeks or, if already initiated, concluded within three months, the Court ordered. Till then, the accused-police officers shall remain suspended, the Court said..Further, the Court ordered that the compensation to be paid to the advocate be recovered from the officers found guilty in the departmental inquiry. The Court added that the grant of ₹3 lakh as compensation to the advocate-petitioner would not prevent him from claiming additional compensation in a civil court to enforce any private law remedy..Separate compliance reports must be furnished for each of the Court’s directions, the judge ordered. Moreover, The Superintendent of Police, Mangaluru, was directed to supervise the investigation into the FIR lodged by the advocate in the matter..[Read Judgment]