Dismissed

Ajaruddin v. Dinesha

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024CRL.P/324/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A police Sub-Inspector challenged a revisional court order directing him to pay compensation for an illegal arrest. The High Court distinguished a coordinate bench decision and dismissed the petition, holding the arrest violated statutory law and Article 21, denying immunity.

What did the court decide?

petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order directing compensation is rejected.

Ajaruddin Vs Dinesha — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9448 CRL.P No. 324 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 324 OF 2013

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

AJARUDDIN, POLICE-SUB INSPECTOR, TURUVEKERE POLICE STATION, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

DINESHA, S/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O DOMBARANAHALLI, VILLAGE, DANDINA SHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572 101.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. BHARATH J., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.11.12 PASSED BY THE P.O., FTC, TIPTUR IN CRL.R.P.NO.22/12.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9448 CRL.P No. 324 of 2013

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶20

" Wherefore the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set - aside the order dt: 26.11.12 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Tiptur, in Cr.Rev.Pet.22/2012 in the interest of justice."

¶21

The petitioner while working as Sub Inspector of Police in Turuvekere police station on 05.01.2012 at about 8.45 p.m. arrested the respondent and produced him before the Executive Magistrate for remand and custody on the ground that the respondent was breaching the peace. The Executive Magistrate remanded respondent No.2 to police custody. Challenging the same the petitioner had filed Criminal Revision Petition No.22/2012 before the Fast Track Court at Turuvekere which had by order dated 26.11.2012 held that the arrest made by the petitioner was contrary to the applicable law, the petitioner had not followed the applicable law and as such, set aside the remand order and directed the petitioner and the Executive Magistrate to make payment of sum of

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:9448 CRL.P No. 324 of 2013

¶24

Rs.1,000/- to the respondent. Challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has acted in good faith. Respondent being in an inebriated condition expressing rowdy behaviour it was required for the petitioner to arrest the respondent. The petitioner has discharged his duties and acted in his official capacity, he has protected public peace and there is no question of compensation required to be paid by the petitioner, as ordered by the Revisional Court. He relies upon a decision of this Court dated 23.01.2023 in Crl.Rev.P. No.186/2013 wherein the compensation directed to be paid by the Executive Magistrate has been set aside and submits that on the very same grounds the compensation directed to be paid by the petitioner would also have to be set aside.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the same by contending that the petitioner has not followed the applicable law. Even if there is an apprehension that there was a breach of peace, it was for the petitioner to

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:9448 CRL.P No. 324 of 2013

¶29

execute a bond with sureties to keep public peace and good behaviour and it is only in the event of said bond not having been executed and or the bond being breached that the arrest could be made. In the present case the petitioner has directly arrested the respondent and produced him before the Executive Magistrate without producing him before the Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the petitioner has not complied with the applicable law. As such, the compensation which has been imposed being very less, he submits that higher compensation must be granted.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the papers.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the petitioner being a Sub Inspector has arrested the respondent on 05.01.2012 at 9.30 p.m. Although an intimation was issued that he is going to produce the respondent before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Turuvekere he was produced before the Executive Magistrate and not before the Judicial

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9448 CRL.P No. 324 of 2013

¶33

Magistrate. Secondly, the arrest itself was made without issuing a show cause notice or without calling upon the respondent to execute a bond i.e., to say the requirements of law was kept and arrest was made directly. The reliance which has been placed upon the decision in Criminal Revision Petition No.186/2013, in my considered opinion would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner inasmuch as the coordinate bench of this Court has taken into consideration that the arrest was made by the petitioner. The production before the Executive Magistrate was made by the petitioner. The remand was made at the request and insistence of the petitioner and the coordinate bench coming to the conclusion that the Executive Magistrate did not breach any of the applicable law, had only remanded the respondent to custody, set aside the order of imposition of compensation.

¶34

The said order in fact only establishes the complicity of the petitioner, inasmuch as the coordinate bench of this Court has taken into consideration that the petitioner has not complied with the applicable law and it is because of

¶35

the petitioner, his insistence that the Executive

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9448 CRL.P No. 324 of 2013

¶37

Magistrate remanded the respondent to custody. The said order being passed in reference to the Executive Magistrate taking into consideration that the Executive Magistrate was not involved in violation of any applicable law, I am of the considered opinion that the same would

¶38

not be applicable to the present case. Since the petitioner has, as on the face of the records, not followed the applicable law and the safety and precautions which have been provided under law to safeguard the life and liberty of a citizen of the country under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, such liberty cannot be circumscribed and or interfered with other than in accordance with law. The petitioner having acted contrary

¶39

to the law, such action cannot be said to be justified, bonafide or in good faith to protect the petitioner with immunity on account of the petitioner being a public officer acting in good faith, the same not being available to the petitioner. The order passed by the Revisional Court being proper and correct, I do not find any infirmity with the same. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:9448 CRL.P No. 324 of 2013

¶42

Pending IAs stand disposed of.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT:SNN

Ajaruddin v. Dinesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajaruddin v. Dinesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Velishala Murahari Vs Muddaveerappa

Natekal Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Channappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Mansoor Naghnoor Vs M/S Imperium Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

G. Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jayanaik Vs Sri Srinivasa