High Court dismissed a contempt application alleging police torture and violation of Arnesh Kumar guidelines. The court found the petitioner's complaints vague, lacking specific dates, and contradicted by the fact that he was an accused released on bail without prior complaint to the magistrate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/MCA/789/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 789 of 2022
==========================================================
KHUSHAL SURESHBHAI KANSARA
Versus
AJITSINH VALA POLICE INSPECTOR & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAYDEEP V DESAI(9970) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. RAJESHKUMAR S MISHRA(9946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 01/09/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)
1. This contempt proceedings has been initiated for alleged
willful disobedience of the direction issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014 disposed of on 2.7.2014.
2. It is the grievance of the complainant that he had received a call from Local Crime Branch (LCB) Mehsana on 28.8.2021 informing him that one Mr. Amrutbhai Patel is missing and for the purpose of investigation, they wanted to record the statement of the applicant. It is stated that applicant furnished his statement and in anticipation that he is likely to be
Page 1 of 10
C/MCA/789/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
implicated, an application for grant of anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc. Application No.1104 of 2021 was filed, which came to be rejected by District Court, Mehsana. Without specifying the dates or time in paragraph-3 of the present application, applicant further submits that he was called by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the police station and was abused and physically tortured. Averments made in paragraph 3 is to the following effect:-
“3. Applicant say and submits that Respondent/s Ajit Sinh Vala (Police Inspector) L.C.B. Mehsana Jibhai Rabari (Assistant Sub Inspector) L.C.B. Mehjsana and Jawansinh (Police Official), called the present applicant and threaten and abuse the present applicant unnecessary. Applicant was called by them at Mehsana and tortured him at length with all the abusive and filthy language they have learnt.”
3. Applicant also pleads that he was slapped by respondents
without any authority of law and was threatened of false case being foisted against him and it would be ensured that he would not be able to secure bail. It is stated that despite all this, complainant did not make out any grievance about this threat.
4. Applicant further contends that respondents again called
the applicant on 11.12.2021 to Mehsana and threatened that in the event of his failure to appear, strict action would be taken
Page 2 of 10
C/MCA/789/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
and thereby creating a fear-psychosis in the mind of complainant, he is said to have reached LCB, Mehsana at 6.00 p.m. along his advocate Mr. x x x and his friend Mr. Akashbhai and jurisdictional police are said to have threatened and also slapped him by using leather belt and stick. Applicant further states that he was kicked near groin area between two legs and was locked up in a room for reasons best known to the respondents and thereby violating the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, including the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar’s case. He further states that respondents also demanded Rs.2 lakhs as otherwise threatened him of being booked under various penal provisions. It is stated that applicant had narrated the entire story to the advocate Mr. x x x, who is practicing at Gujarat High Court, who then reached LCB Mehsana at 1 O’clock in the night in his own car and on being inquired as to whether there was any FIR registered against the applicant, he was informed of there being no such FIR. Yet, without there being any FIR registered against the applicant, he was slapped and inhumanly treated. Applicant further states that advocate Mr. x x x called State Police Control room and Mehsana Police
Page 3 of 10
C/MCA/789/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
control room from his mobile number x x x and after detailed discussion, the advocate was informed not to complain about the incident and only after assurance being given and with this assurance of not harassing or beating the complainant, after being told that no complaint would not be made to any authorities against the respondents, they had freed the complainant at 2.30 p.m.
5. Applicant further states that to settle scores with the applicant, respondents have conspired and created a false complaint and a bogus case has been registered an FIR for the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 in FIR No.11206038210868. Challenging the very said FIR as being without jurisdiction, present complaint is filed.
6. Applicant further states that on 16.1.2022, applicant was called again by respondents and was informed about the investigation of the aforesaid FIR having been handed over to the respondents and as such, respondent 1 to 3 called upon the applicant and demanded payment, namely bribe, to save the applicant from the case. Applicant contends that in spite of
Page 4 of 10
C/MCA/789/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
respondents being informed that he does not know the complainant and even after being informed by the complainant of there being no fraud played on part of the petitioner and on being informed that alleged transaction, which culminated in registration of FIR No.11206038210868, petitioner was only a witness and even at that stage, respondents had demanded double the amount, i.e. Rs.4 lakh, in spite of being informed that petitioner did not have any amount. It is also alleged that respondents have abused the petitioner in abusive language and alleges that on 16.1.2022, respondent police have taken signatures on many documents. Contending inter alia that FIR registered against the complainant is based on fabricated and concocted story and for non-payment of amount, I-20 car white colour bearing registration No.GJ-01 WD 5151 said to have been seized by police, contending that there is no reference to the said vehicle in the FIR registered against the petitioner, which itself is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that it is a fabricated FIR, complainant- petitioner herein has prayed for action being taken against the respondents herein for violation of the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar’s case.
Page 5 of 10
C/MCA/789/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we notice that in the initial paragraphs, i.e. paragraphs 3 and 4 of this complaint, sweeping statements have been made, namely there are no details as to on what date, petitioner was called by police and at what time and location. Bald and vague statements have been made without any material particulars. That apart, FIR registered against the complainant by jurisdictional police is for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that complainant was taken to custody on 6.2.2022 and released by jurisdictional Court on bail on 9.2.2022. To a pointed out question posed by this Court as to whether complainant- petitioner was in police custody or in judicial custody, counsel has submitted that complainant was in police custody. The record and proceedings of the Trial Court is not produced. Undisputedly, complainant was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who has released him on bail. If really the story put forward or facts which are sought to be contended before this Court happened on the date and time alleged, then nothing prevented the petitioner to have stated
Page 6 of 10
C/MCA/789/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
about alleged assault or ill-treatment meted out by the police to jurisdictional Magistrate when he was was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. There is not even a whisper in the petition about such statement having been made by the complainant before the jurisdictional Magistrate. On the other hand, petitioner himself being an accused in the FIR registered by Mehsana LCB for offence under Sections 406 and 420, his vehicle having been seized as a muddamal, which is admitted by the petitioner himself in the petition vide paragraph-15 persuade this Court to disbelieve the contention now put forward.
8. Contempt to be criminal, must be so in its nature or by its incidence. Contempt which tends to bring administration of justice into scorn and which tends to interfere with due course of administration of justice, are criminal in nature. Directions given by the Courts if being ignored by the State or its instrumentalities through its officers which would be binding on them has to be held to be flagrant interference with the administration of justice and amounts to clear contempt of Court. Any conduct by which the course of justice is obstructed
Page 7 of 10
C/MCA/789/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
either by a party or a stranger is contempt. Keeping this salutary principles in mind, when we look at the facts of the present case, it would not detain us too long to nip this petition at bud, namely dismiss the same without any notice being issued, inasmuch as averments made in the petition are not only vague but are also bereft of material particulars. When petitioner himself admits that he was arrested by jurisdictional police and released on bail on 9.2.2022, least that was expected of him was to produce copy of the order granting bail to him and/or producing the records and proceedings of the Trial Court, indicating submissions or statement made on behalf of the accused complaining about acts of brutalty of police having been recorded by the Magistrates. There is not even a whisper in the petition as to whether petitioner had complained to the jurisdictional Magistrate about any such incidence having occurred in the police station, when being produced before Magistrate of any alleged or purported ill-treatment meted out by LCB police as contended now. Merely because there is registration of a criminal case against the petitioner or petitioner having been called for by the jurisdictional police for
Page 8 of 10
C/MCA/789/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
the purposes of investigation by itself cannot be construed as police authorities having violated the directions of Arnesh Kumar’s case, until and unless it is supported by some material evidence, which we have narrated herein-above, would have sufficed for us to issue notice on this petition. In the absence of the, in exercise of power vested under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, this Court cannot embark upon the exercise of conducting a roving inquiry or fish out evidence in order to examine as to whether there was any purported illtreatment meted out by police authorities to the petitioner or not. Even semblance of material placed on record would have been sufficient enough for this Court to issue notice and in the absence of such material, calling upon the respondent authorities to answer the bald assertions or claim made by the petitioner would definitely put the authorities in a deep spot and any attempts made to derail the investigation process by such methods ought not to be countenanced. As such, we do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly we DISMISS as being devoid of merits by reserving liberty the complainant to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate, if so advised by filing
Page 9 of 10
C/MCA/789/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2022
necessary complaint in that regard.
Sd/(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ)
Sd/(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
OMKAR
Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bald and vague allegations of police ill-treatment constitute contempt warranting notice.
Whether the petitioner has substantiated claims of violation of Arnesh Kumar guidelines with material evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of BiharReferred¶1
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014
Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts ActApplied¶8
Khushal Sureshbhai Kansara
Ajitsinh Vala
Aravind Kumar
Ashutosh J. Shastri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
