The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court ordered an investigating officer from Hingoli, Maharashtra to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation for illegally arresting a man. Additionally, a police officer, the complainant in the case, was ordered to pay Rs 50,000 to his estranged brother-in-law, who was illegally detained.

The case was heard by Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and SG Chapalgaonkar, following a petition to quash the FIR lodged at Hingoli City Police Station on June 27, 2024. The FIR alleged defamation and cited Sections 66-A (sending offensive material) and 66-B. (retaining a stolen computer) of the Information Technology Act. However, the court noted that the Supreme Court found Section 66-A unconstitutional, while Section 66-B was irrelevant to the case.

Despite this, the petitioner was arrested after midnight on August 6 and was granted bail that same day.

The petitioner alleged that the arrest was influenced by a family dispute involving his ex-wife, who had previously filed a case of spousal cruelty against him. The FIR arose from a message that the petitioner had sent to a relative of his wife, alleging that she had made videos of their intimate moments, which her brother circulated. The brother, a police officer, accused him of defamation and closed the case.

In a forceful ruling, the court criticized the agent’s conduct, emphasizing that he had not verified the applicability of the articles invoked before proceeding with the arrest.

“It is unimaginable that before arrest the investigating officer would not realize which are the sections being invoked, what is the punishment prescribed and whether he can make a lawful arrest in such situations,” the court asked, adding that invoking a section unconstitutional reflected “a complete disregard for the law established by the Supreme Court.”

The court further highlighted the “arrogance of the police machinery”, noting that no reason for arrest was provided to the petitioner, as required by law for cases with imprisonment of less than seven years.

The court further said, “We are constrained to observe that First Class Judicial Magistrate Hingoli has also failed to take into account whether the arrest was necessary and whether it was in accordance with the provisions of law or not.”

The court added that the alleged defamatory message was sent via WhatsApp, which is end-to-end encrypted, meaning the content was intended only for the recipient, not the public. He, the court noted, challenged the defamation claim because there was no intention to harm the complainant’s reputation in society.

Concluding that the FIR was lodged with “mala fide intention”, the court quashed the FIR and ordered the investigating officer and the complainant to pay compensation to the petitioner.