Iqbal Kaur Kwatra vs The Director General Of Police 1996 (2) ALT 138 AP High Court

Andhra High Court

Petitioner –    Iqbal Kaur Kwatra

Respondent –      Director General of Police

Bench-K S Shrivastav,M Rao

Fact of the case

1. under Art 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to produce her husband Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra and to set him at liberty.

2. Dr. Amrith Pal Singh is the son of Mr. Ranbir Singh and Smt. Harjeet Kaur and elder brother of Mr. Mohinder Pal Singh. The petitioner is the aunt, i.e., sister of Mr. Ranbir Singh and wife of Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra. Dr. Amrit Pal Singh was married to Dr. Brinder Jeet Kaur, daughter of the 5th respondent, on 19-9-1993 in Jaipur. After the marriage, Dr. Brinder Jeet Kaur came to Hyderabad and stayed with her husband and in-laws. She also got employment in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. At that time, her husband Dr. Amrit Pal Singh was in service at Kanpur and thereafter at Lucknow, while the petitioner and her husband Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra were staying in Visakhapatnam

3. Dr. Brinder Jeet Kaur went with her husband to Lucknow some time in the month of February, 1994 and after staying there for about a. month she went to Jaipur on 28-3-1994 and staying there with her father, that is, respondent No. 5 since then.Dr. Brinder Jeet Kaur went with her husband to Lucknow some time in the month of February, 1994 and On 25-10-1994, the 2nd respondent Mr. Har Pal Singh along with Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and two constables as also the 5th respondent, who had come in a van from Jaipur to Hyderabad, visited the house of the petitioner at about 6.30 a.m., and took her husband Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra to Deccan Continental Hotel, Hyderabad. The petitioner followed them. Thereafter, Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was taken to the Bowanpalli Police Station, Hyderabad. On the same day at 10.00 a.m., the 2nd respondent Mr. Har Pal Singh prepared an arrest memo in which it is shown that Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra had been arrested in Crime No. 81 of 1994 under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and besides his wearings, Rs. 800/- in cash, a small telephone directory and a driving licence were found and except his wearings other articles were seized. At about 12.45 p.m., the 2nd respondent Mr. Har Pal Singh with his staff and the 5th respondent left Secunderabad for Jaipur. They also took Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra with them. The 2nd respondent broke the journey after covering a distance of about 55-60 kms., on National High Way No. 7 – Hyderabad Nagpur road at about 2.15 p.m., for lunch. He and his party and the arrested person Mr. B. P. Kwatra stayed there till 11.00 p.m. Thereafter, they proceeded further and reached Hinganghat in Maharashtra State at about 10.00 a.m., on 26-10-1994. The 2nd respondent produced Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hinganghat for transit remand, which was refused by the Magistrate and at about 3.00 p.m., the 2nd respondent Mr. Har Pal Singh proceeded further with his party and Mr. B.P.S. Kwatra reached Jaipur on 27-10-1994 at 11.15 p.m. He produced Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra before the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 7, Jaipur at his residence and obtained police remand for one day. On 28-10-1994, Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was produced before the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur with a request for police remand for ten days because this Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The Magistrate refused the remand and later on the application for bail filed by Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra released him on bail on 28-10-1994 staying there for about a month. She went to Jaipur on 28-3-1994 and stayed there with her father, that is, respondent No. 5 since then.

4. On 25-10-1994, the 2nd respondent Mr. Har Pal Singh along with Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and two constables as also the 5th respondent, who had come in a van from Jaipur to Hyderabad, visited the house of the petitioner at about 6.30 a.m., and took her husband Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra to Deccan Continental Hotel, Hyderabad. The petitioner followed them. Thereafter, Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was taken to the Bowanpalli Police Station, Hyderabad. On the same day at 10.00 a.m., the 2nd respondent Mr. Har Pal Singh prepared an arrest memo in which it is shown that Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra had been arrested in Crime No. 81 of 1994 under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and besides his wearings, Rs. 800/- in cash, a small telephone directory and a driving licence were found and except his wearings other articles were seized. At about 12.45 p.m., the 2nd respondent Mr. Har Pal Singh with his staff and the 5th respondent left Secunderabad for Jaipur. They also took Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra with them. The 2nd respondent broke the journey after covering a distance of about 55-60 kms., on National High Way No. 7 – Hyderabad Nagpur road at about 2.15 p.m., for lunch. He and his party and the arrested person Mr. B. P. Kwatra stayed there till 11.00 p.m. Thereafter, they proceeded further and reached Hinganghat in Maharashtra State at about 10.00 a.m., on 26-10-1994. The 2nd respondent produced Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hinganghat for transit remand, which was refused by the Magistrate and at about 3.00 p.m., the 2nd respondent Mr. Har Pal Singh proceeded further with his party and Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra and reached Jaipur on 27-10-1994 at 11.15 p.m. He produced Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra before the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 7, Jaipur at his residence and obtained police remand for one day. On 28-10-1994, Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was produced before the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur with a request for police remand for ten days because this Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The Magistrate refused the remand and later on the application for bail filed by Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra released him on bail on 28-10-1994.

Issues involved

1. whether an arrested person can be detained beyond 24 hours?

2. whether the procedures made by the officers in producing the arrested person before the Magistrate was legal?

3. On the grounds filed by petitioner before the court for habeas corpus is maintainable?

Contentions by petitioner

1. The 5th respondent Mr. Ranjeet Singh when reached her house with the police party and tried to take them with him, on enquiry, they informed her to have come to Hyderabad to arrest her brother Mr. Ranbir Singh. But he was not available in his residence and, therefore, they are taking her and her husband Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra to be detained till Mr. Ranbir Singh is arrested. She and her husband were taken to Deccan Continental Hotel, Hyderabad and were kept in illegal custody. On her request, she was permitted to bring the wearings of her husband because he was in night dress till then. Later, in the evening, she had a talk on telephone with the 2nd respondent the Circle Inspector of Police of Jaipur, i.e., the 2nd respondent Mr. Har Pal Singh as also with her husband, who was in his custody. Her husband informed her on telephone that these persons were torturing him. On enquiry she came to know that the 2nd and 5th respondents had stayed in Deccan Continental Hotel, Hyderabad. She lodged a criminal complaint with Mahankali Police Station, Secunderabad that her husband had been kidnapped. Her husband was arrested without warrant of arrest by the 2nd respondent at the instigation of the 5th respondent. Both these persons abused her and her husband in vulgar language and the 2nd respondent had manhandled him. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed that her husband should be ordered to be produced in Court and should be set at liberty.

Contentions of respondent

1. The respondent contented that on 29-9-1994 the 5th respondent had lodged a written complaint with Mahila Thana, Jaipur City, Jaipur and on the basis of which Crime No. 81 of 1994 under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. During the course of investigation, the personnel of Rajasthan police came to Hyderabad with the intention of arresting the accused Dr. Amrith Pal Singh and his parents and Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra, the husband of the petitioner, who has been named as one of the accused in Crime No. 81 of 1994, under orders of the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City to arrest the accused persons and to recover the ‘Stridhan’. The 2nd respondent along with his staff and the 5th respondent, i.e., the complainant, reached Secunderabad on 24-10-1994 at about 2.30 a.m. and stayed in Deccan Continental Hotel, Hyderabad. On the same morning they took assistance from Bowenpally Police Station and was provided with a Constable named Mr. Gurnam Singh. Vigorous search was made for the accused persons for the whole day but without success.

2. On 25-10-1994 at about 5.45 a.m., on request, the services of Constable Mr. Gurnam Singhu was provided to the 2nd respondent, who along with his staff went to the house of the petitioner at about 6.30 a.m., and took Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra for interrogation to Deccan Continental Hotel. The petitioner also followed them up to the Deccan Continental Hotel and requested to release her husband. She was informed that her husband was required for investigation. At 7.30 a.m., the 2nd respondent went to Bowenpally Police Station and he was followed by the petitioner there also. She was requested to go back with the request to inform about the whereabouts of Mr. Ranbir Singh and his family. After her departure, the 2nd respondent brought Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra to Bowenpally Police Station where he gave some clues regarding Mr. Ranbir Singh. At 10.00 a.m., Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was arrested and his wife was informed on telephone about his arrest. At 10.00 a.m. a second attempt was made to arrest Mr. Ranbir Singh, but as his house was found locked, they came back to Bowenpally Police Station, at 12.30 p.m. At about 12.45 p.m. the 2nd respondent and his party with the husband of the petitioner left Hyderabad for Jaipur and they stayed for lunch at 2.15 p.m., after covering a distance of 50 to 60 kms. At the request of Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra, he was permitted to talk to his wife at about 3.00 p.m. to find out whether Mr. Ranbir Singh had come back to his residence. He informed the 2nd respondent that Mr. Ranbir Singh and others had gone to Bidar and were likely to return by 9.00 p.m. Therefore, the 2nd respondent decided to stay there upto that time. At about 8.00 p.m., and again at 9.30 p.m., Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra telephoned his wife and, after talking to her, told the 2nd respondent that Mr. Ranbir Singh and his family had returned to their residence. The petitioner was requested to tell Mr. Ranbir Singh and his family members that the complainant, that is the 5th respondent, would talk to Mr. Ranbir Singh on telephone so that he could identify them. But till 11.00 p.m. there was no response on their telephone. Again Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra telephoned his wife, but it was gathered that they were simply passing the time and further waiting would not be fruitful. Therefore, after taking dinner, the 2nd respondent with his party proceeded further and in Hinganghat Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at about 10.00 a.m., who after perusing the material, refused to grant transit remand. Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra has also filed an application before the Magistrate. The 2nd respondent with his team left for Jaipur after 2.30 p.m. and reached there at about 11.55 p.m. and produced Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra before the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 7, Jaipur at his residence, who on his request granted police remand for a day. Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was arrested in Crime No. 81 of 1994 under Section 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the F.I.R. and the Statement of Dr. Brinder Jeet Kaur. Later Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was released on bail on 28-10-1994. It is denied that to wreck his personal vengeance against this son-in-law and his father, the 5th respondent got Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra manhandled the police.

Legal provisions

1. Section 57 of CrPC
2. Section 61 of CrPC
3. Section 167 of CrPC
4. Section 340 of IPC
5. Section 161 of CrPC
6. Section 160 of CrPC

Legal Reasoning

Section 57 of CrPC

Person arrested should not be detained for more than twenty- four hours. No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty- four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’ s Court.

Section 61 of CrPC

Form of summons. Every summons issued by a Court under this Code shall be in writing, in duplicate, signed by the presiding officer of such Court or by such other officer as the High Court may, from time to time, by rule direct, and shall bear the seal of the Court.

Section 167 of CrPC

Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.

Section 340 of IPC

It defines wrongful confinement as, “whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.”

Section 161 of CrPC

(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such a case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.

(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.

Section 160 CrPC

(1) Any police officer, making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required: Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.

(2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub- section (1) at any place other than his residence.

Judgement 

It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was forcibly taken from his residence in the early morning of 25-10-1995 to the Deccan Continental Hotel and, therefore, to the police station. But, in the arrest memo-time of arrest has been shown as 10.00 a.m., which is totally false. He was not produced before the nearest Magistrate but was taken to Jaipur with unnecessary break in journey. And, under these circumstances it is established that Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was illegally detained with ulterior motives. The petitioner was also harassed and humiliated. Her husband Mr. B. P. S. Kwatra was manhandled and tortured and thus the petitioner is entitled to damages by way of compensation.

The writ petitions are thus disposed of accordingly. And direct the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 6 to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the petitioner.

Conclusion

In this case the  respondents have arrested and detained the petitioner even without a warrant and also doesn’t provided him before the nearest magistrate  and it is also proved that he was going under torturing by the police and as well from other respondents. Here the court has clearly found that allegations made by the respondents are false and hence should be punishable for the offence they committed .

written by SHERIN MOIDU C intern under legal vidhiya