Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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