Top Court imposes Rs 6 lakh cost on police personnel for conspiring & abetting crime of illegal detention of tenants & getting premises demolished without Court’s order
Justices Vikram Nath & Satish Chandra Sharma [30-01-2024]

Read Order: SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL & ORS v. VINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY & ANR [SC- SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 14585/2023]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, February 1, 2024: In a property dispute matter where the complainant had withdrawn the complaint after settlement, the Supreme Court has ordered that the case would be quashed if 6 police personnel deposit the imposed cost of Rs 6 lakh as they were involved in conspiring & abetting the crime of the illegal detention of the tenants, coercing them to sign the document against their will and getting the premises demolished without any order from a competent Court.

The premises in dispute were owned by one Rajeev Ramrao Chavan. He sold the property to five persons vide a registered sale deed. Unfortunately, the vendor of the sale deed died and left behind a suicide note, naming the tenants as abettors. On the strength of the same, a complaint was made to the local police. However, an accidental death was registered, but no FIR (First Information Report) was registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The tenants were held for about 24 hours in the Police Station and in the meantime, the premises in question were demolished by the brother of the deceased-vendor, his widow, and with the support of the local police. At the Police Station, the tenants were also forced to sign some documents, apparently giving their consent of vacating the premises voluntarily.

The two tenants lodged complaint initially with the Police Station, but as the same was not acknowledged, they moved an application before the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Magistrate passed an order for an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., confining it to the involvement of the brother of the deceased, widow of the deceased, and the five purchasers. This order of the Magistrate was challenged by the tenants/complainants before the Sessions Judge and the same was allowed. This order was was challenged before the High Court by all the 13 accused but the Court issued further directions regarding investigation.

During the pendency of the petitions, some settlement had been arrived at between the complainants and the 13 accused. The subsequent purchasers paid an amount of Rs 10 lakh to each of the tenants, and in lieu thereof, the tenants had filed their affidavits stating that they did not wish to further prosecute their complaint.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was of the view that the continuance of the two criminal proceedings would not be of any avail once the complainant has himself stated to withdraw the complaint. Their losses having been compensated, any further investigation or trial would be an exercise in futility, it added.

The compensation for the tenants had been given by the subsequent purchasers, as stated in the affidavits, apparently for the reason that they were now the owners of the property and they had been instrumental in carrying out the demolition illegally. It was also noticed by the Court that the widow of the deceased and the brother may not be having any further interest inasmuch as the property had already been sold by the deceased four and half months prior to his death.

“However, what we are not satisfied with is why the police personnel have been allowed to go scot-free in a case where they had an apparent roll in conspiring and in abetting the crime of the illegal detention of the tenants, coercing them to sign the document against their will, and getting the premises in question demolished without any order from a competent Court”, the Bench said.

Considering such strong circumstances, the Bench directed that the six police personnel would suffer a cost of Rs 6 lakh for each of the two complainants. The Bench further clarified that the costs to be imposed would be Rs 50,000 per Constable, Rs 1 lakh on the Head Constable, Rs 1.50 lakh on the Sub-Inspector, and Rs 2 lakh by the Inspector. This amount has been ordered to be deposited in Account of the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund, Canara Bank, within four weeks. Upon deposit of such amount, the case has been ordered to be quashed. However, the Bech concluded the matter by saying that this order may not be kept in their service records.