a bank of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar He added that while protecting the fundamental rights of those subjected to torture in custody, the Court must also be on guard against all false, motivated and frivolous claims in the interest of society and enable the police to carry out their duties bravely and effectively.

The division bench observed thus while dismissing a criminal writ petition filed by one Shah Faisal seeking compensation and action against two police officials for allegedly committing custodial torture by confining him in police custody without rhyme or reason.

In brief, the case of the petitioner was arrested by police officers of Partawal Outpost on February 14, 2021, allegedly on false pretexts and the sub-inspector and police officer threatened him and demanded Rs 50,000 from his father.

The petitioner further alleged that after refusing the bribe, he was beaten up in police custody and when he tried to lodge an FIR against the police officers, the local police refused to register his complaint.

It was also alleged that the petitioner subsequently lodged complaints through the IGRS Portal and before the Superintendent of Police on February 19. Still, no action was taken against the officers involved.

On the other hand, the AGA appearing on behalf of the state opposed the writ petition alleging that the petitioner had made false and exaggerated claims regarding illegal detention/torture and that there was no clear or incontrovertible evidence regarding custodial torture nor any report. doctor of no injury. or disability inflicted on the petitioner.

In the context of these allegations, the Court, from the outset, observed that in the case of custodial torture, the procedure under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution could only be initiated when there was substantial evidence of custodial torture.

The Court further added that it may not be prudent to accept complaints of human rights violations brought by people who usually have criminal records in order to award compensation.

“If this is allowed, a wrong trend would take place and every criminal arrested or interrogated would come forward and file a petition asking for heavy compensation for the action of the police officers. Furthermore, if such procedures are encouraged, it will open the floodgates for false claims, either to collect money from the State or to prevent or thwart future investigations.”, remarked the Court.

Importantly, the Court also stressed that before considering such claims for compensation and any action that may need to be taken against police officers for judicial torture, the Court must ask itself the following questions:

(a) if there is a violation of any human right or violation of Article 21, which is patent and incontrovertible;

(b) if said violation is serious and of such magnitude as to shock the conscience of the court and

c) whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that torture occurred during detention.

The Court further opined that it is the primary responsibility of the Court to ensure that in case there is no evidence of torture in the custody of a person except his own statement and where such allegation is not supported by any medical report or other corroborative evidence, o Where there are clear indications that the allegations are false or exaggerated, in whole or in part, the Court may not award compensation as a public law remedy under Article 226 and, in such a situation, the appropriate remedy is to relegate the aggrieved party to traditional remedies through appropriate civil/criminal action.

In this context, when the Court examined the facts of the case, it noted that the petitioner cannot be presumed to be an innocent person as an FIR had been lodged against him, in which he was accused of beating up one Rishikesh Bharti. with a rod

The Court also noted that due to the alleged torture during detention, the petitioner had filed a complaint on the IGRS portal and the SSP had initiated the investigation and after the investigation nothing was found against the police officers, so they were placed in custody. freedom.

The Court also observed that there was no blatant and incontrovertible violation of the petitioner’s human rights, which cannot be considered a serious violation. Therefore, it cannot be said that law enforcement agencies have gone too far in suppressing crime in society.

The Court also noted that there was no clear or indisputable evidence of custodial torture of the petitioner and therefore in the absence of such material, the Court added, it could not grant any compensation or any other relief.

With this, the petition was dismissed.

Case title – Shah Faisal vs State Of UP and 4 others

Citation:

Click here to read/download the order