Maharashtra cop asked to pay Rs 2 lakh for illegal arrest

The petitioner had alleged that his arrest was influenced by a family dispute involving his estranged wife, who had previously filed a marital cruelty case against him.

In Short

• Bombay High Court criticises police for arrest without verifying grounds
• Quashes FIR against man, citing unconstitutional and irrelevant sections
• Asks investigating officer to pay Rs 2 lakh, constable to pay Rs 50,000

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

The case was heard by Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and SG Chapalgaonkar, following a petition to quash the FIR filed at Hingoli’s 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 Section 66-A was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, while Section 66-B was irrelevant to the case.

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

The petitioner alleged that the arrest was influenced by a family dispute involving his estranged wife, who had previously filed a marital cruelty case against him. The FIR stemmed from a message the petitioner had sent to a relative of his wife, claiming that she made videos of their intimate moments, which her brother circulated. The brother, a police constable, accused him of defamation and filed the case.

In a strongly-worded judgement, the court criticised the officer’s conduct, emphasising that he failed to verify the applicability of the invoked sections before making the arrest.

"It is beyond imagination that before the arrest, the Investigating Officer will not apply his mind, as to which are the sections those are invoked, what is the punishment, that is, prescribed and whether he can make a legal arrest in such situations?” the bench asked, adding that invoking an unconstitutional section reflected "utter disregard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court."

The court further highlighted the "high-handedness of the police machinery," noting that no reason for the arrest was provided to the petitioner, as required by law for cases with imprisonment under seven years.

The bench further said "We are constrained to observe that the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli has also not taken into consideration as to whether the arrest was necessary and whether it was under 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. This, the court noted, challenged the defamation claim as there was no intention to damage the complainant’s reputation in society.

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