The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the State to pay a compensation of ₹ 2 lakh to a woman from Kanniyakumari district who was falsely implicated in a case under the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
The court was hearing a petition filed in 2016 by the woman who sought compensation from the State. The woman had a dispute with her house owner. Based on a complaint lodged by the house owner, a case was registered against the woman. A chargesheet was filed against her before the Judicial Magistrate concerned. The petitioner was arrested and detained in a home in Madurai for 13 days and thereafter enlarged on bail.
Later, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil, conducted a detailed enquiry and gave a report in 2011 with a finding that the case registered against the petitioner under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act was absolutely wrong and the case was foisted against the petitioner due to personal tenancy disputes. The High Court quashed the chargesheet against the woman in 2015.
Taking a serious view of the issue, Justice R. Vijayakumar observed that in the present case, the petitioner had been falsely implicated under the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The court took into account that she was arrested and remanded at 9.30 p.m.. She was detained in a detention home for a period of 13 days.
Later in an enquiry conducted by the higher police official it was found that a false case had been lodged against her and based upon the report, the court had quashed the chargesheet. It is clear that the right of privacy and reputation of the petitioner have been sullied by the act of the police officials for which the State is certainly responsible.
The State cannot take advantage of the fact that their own officials had conducted an inquiry and found the case to be a foisted one. When the State has accepted the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil, they should have initiated action against the person who had filed the false case. However, the State has not proceeded in that direction.
The entire criminal case has been lodged based upon some telephonic information by an anonymous person which was later converted into a complaint through a person who was brought to the police station for a traffic offence. Therefore, the State cannot shirk its responsibility or its vicarious liability for the acts of its officials which resulted in violation of the privacy and loss of reputation of an unmarried woman.
Even after the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DCB, Nagercoil, for nearly four years, the police authorities have continued with the prosecution. The State had not initiated any action against the police officials who were found to be guilty in the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DCB, Nagercoil, the court observed.
The court is of the view that the authorities have violated the privacy and harmed the reputation of the petitioner. Therefore, the State is liable to pay a compensation of ₹ 2 lakh to the petitioner within eight weeks. The State was at liberty to recover the same from the erring police officials, the court observed.
