The Bombay High Court recently said that police stations are supposed to be places where people can walk in freely to lodge their complaints and redress the wrong done to them [Zishan Mukhtar Hussain Siddique v. State of Maharashtra]..A Division Bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and RN Laddha quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a 33-year-old man under Section 3 (spying) of the Official Secrets Act for clicking photographs of a written complaint filed against him at the Mira Road Police Station in Mumbai.The Bench, while reiterating that a police station is not a 'prohibited place' under the Act, said that the police can at the most put up a display board against photography."Police Station do not come within the definition of 'prohibited place', as defined in the law. Police Stations are places, where people are free to go/walk in, to lodge a complaint/FIR, to redress the wrong/injustice done to them. It is always open for the police to put up a board prohibiting photography but if one does take a photo/video, certainly, the said act would not come within the ambit of the Official Secrets Act," the order stated..Pertinently, a Bench led by Justice Mohite-Dere had passed a similar order on December 22 last year, by which it had quashed an FIR under the Act law against a man who had clicked photos of a police station from outside. In that order, the Bench had highlighted the continued misuse of the provisions of the Official Secrets Act by police in several cases."Invocation of section 3 of the Act, can have drastic consequences on the person against whom it is invoked. It could impact one's reputation, job, career and so on. It cannot be lightly invoked, to jeopardize someone's life and career. Law cannot be misused or abused and must not be used as a tool for harassing or tormenting person," the Bench had observed..In the present case, the Bench noted,"Prima facie, the Official Secrets Act appears to have been malafidely invoked by the concerned Police. By no stretch of imagination, section 3 could have been invoked in the facts of the present case...Law cannot be used as an instrument to oppress and harrass people. Police being the custodians of law are duty bound to uphold it and not misuse it."It thus ordered the State to pay costs of ₹25,000 to the petitioner and quashed the FIR..Advocate Anees Shaikh appeared for the petitioner. Additional Public Prosecutor Jayesh Yagnik represented the State..[Read order]
