CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Directs Police Personnel to Pay Rs. 6 Lakhs for Misconduct in Property Demolition Case”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India today directed six police personnel to pay a total of Rs. 6 lakhs as a part of costs in a case involving the illegal demolition of a property and subsequent police misconduct. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, passed this order in a series of connected Special Leave Petitions (SLP).

The case, titled Shatrughna Atmaram Patil & Ors. Vs. Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary & Anr., and connected petitions, revolved around the illegal demolition of a property following the suicide of its owner, Rajeev Ramrao Chavan. The tenants, Vijaykumar Vishwanath Dhawale and Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary, who lodged complaints against the demolition, alleged police misconduct.

The judgment highlighted the role of police personnel in the illegal detention of the tenants and their coercion to sign documents vacating the premises. Justice Vikram Nath observed, “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 role in conspiring and in abetting the crime.”

The court’s directive mandates that the police personnel deposit the amount in the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks and provide proof of deposit. This instruction follows a settlement in which the accused paid Rs. 10 lakhs to each of the tenants, leading to the withdrawal of their complaints. The proceedings arising out of the two criminal complaints under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall be quashed upon the deposit of the said amount.

The bench also clarified that the observations made and the direction for compensation by the police personnel should not be treated adversely in consideration of their promotions or service records.

 Date of Decision: 30th January 2024

SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL & ORS. VS VINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY & ANR.

 

Latest Legal News