Detention without reason by Judicial Magistrate liable for departmental action by High Court

Kritika Pandey | Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda | 11th January 2020

Sri. Jaikant S S/O Sekar K Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No.4306 of 2019

Facts:

• General Secretary of State JDS Legal Cell lodged a complaint alleging that Jaikant had uploaded defamatory posts about former Prime Minister Shri.H.D. Devegowda, Chief Minister Shri. H.D.Kumaraswamy and Shri.Nikhil Kumaraswamy in ‘facebook’ and ‘instagram’ pages captioned as ‘Troll Maga’. Accordingly, FIR bearing No.91/2019 was registered.
• Jaikant approached the City Civil Court seeking anticipatory bail. The learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail with a direction to surrender before the Police within a week.
• Jaikant went to the Police Station along with Advocate and a surety. He was asked to come on the following day to comply with the bail order. Police refused to even acknowledge his visit to the Police Station on that day. Petitioner went to the Police Station on next day with Advocate and surety. Police not only refused to accept the surety, but on the other hand, issued a notice to the petitioner stating that he had violated bail conditions.
• Petitioner again approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking modification of the earlier order by filing an affidavit containing details of his visit to the Police Station. The learned Sessions Judge summoned the Investigating Officer to the Court. The Investigating Officer filed a Memo stating that though petitioner visited the Police Station, he had not brought the surety; that he was on special duty and instructed the petitioner to comply with a Court order, but the petitioner did not comply.
• On the following day petitioner appeared before him and he had issued a notice to the petitioner informing violation of bail conditions. And again Police picked up petitioner from his residence in connection with second FIR bearing No.99/2019.

Petitioner Contention:

• The FIRs have been registered at the behest of the ruling party workers;
• Police have acted in a high-handed manner and taken the petitioner into custody byregistering second FIR to defeat the bail order granted by the learned Sessions Judge;
• Police have not followed the directions contained in Arnesh kumar Vs. State of Bihar2014 8 SCC 273, therefore, quash the FIR.Directions:
  • The police officer shall duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials whichnecessitated the arrest, while forwarding the accused before the Magistrate forfurther detention;
  • The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the reportfurnished by the police officer and only after recording its satisfaction, theMagistrate will authorize detention;
  • The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within twoweeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the SP of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
  • Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
  • Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

Respondent Contention:

• Petitioner has violated the bail conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge not to indulge in similar activities.
• Having obtained bail, petitioner has again posted defamatory posts in violation of bail conditions.
• The first FIR bearing No.91/2019 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 504, 507 and 153A of IPC, whereas the second FIR bearing No.99/2019 has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 153A, 295A, 504, 506, 354(D) and 298 of IPC. Thus, the second FIR is based on different offences.

Held:

1. The FIR No.99/2019 has been registered only to ensure that petitioner was somehow arrested and detained in custody. Therefore, it is just and appropriate to quash the FIR.
2. This is a blatant violation of fundamental right by the Police. Mere quashing the FIR shall not mitigate the agony which the petitioner was compelled to undergo. So, State shall pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/ to the petitioner.
3. The Registrar General shall take necessary action for initiation of Departmental Enquiry against the Magistrate as per directions in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (supra).