2011 (9) TMI 1224 - SC - Indian Laws

Misuse of an arrest warrant - Offence punishable u/s 324 IPC - non-bailable warrant issued on failure to attend the court proceedings - urgency or promptness in execution of warrant led to undesirable interference with the liberty of the Appellant - Whether the Appellant is entitled to any compensation for the humiliation and harassment suffered by him on account of the wrong perpetrated by Respondent No. 2 in addition to what has been awarded by the High Court - complaint related to the year 2000 At the relevant time the offence punishable u/s 324 was a bailable offence - warrant was executed at the behest of the complainant in order to denigrate and humiliate the Appellant at a public place in public view during the course of Independence day celebrations at Radio Club - HC held that It is a clear case of unnecessary interference with the liberty of a citizen. HELD THAT - Viewed in this perspective we regret to note that in the present case having regard to nature of the complaint against the Appellant and his stature in the community and the fact that admittedly the Appellant was regularly attending the court proceedings it was not a fit case where non-bailable warrant should have been issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. In our opinion the attendance of the Appellant could have been secured by issuing summons or at best by a bailable warrant. We are therefore in complete agreement with the High Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case issuance of non-bailable warrant was manifestly unjustified. It is trite principle of law that in matters involving infringement or deprivation of a fundamental right; abuse of process of law harassment etc. the courts have ample power to award adequate compensation to an aggrieved person not only to remedy the wrong done to him but also to serve as a deterrent for the wrong doer. Monetary compensation to victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 are violated - Having considered the case we are of the opinion that the Appellant does not deserve further monetary compensation. Whether the Courts can at all issue a warrant called a non-bailable warrant - Nevertheless we feel that the endorsement of the expression non-bailable on a warrant is to facilitate the executing authority as well as the person against whom the warrant is sought to be executed to make them aware as to the nature of the warrant that has been issued. In our view merely because Form No. 2 issued u/s 476 of the Code and set forth in the Second schedule nowhere uses the expression bailable or non-bailable warrant that does not prohibit the Courts from using the said word or expression while issuing the warrant or even to make endorsement to that effect on the warrant so issued. Any endorsement/variation which is made on such warrant for the benefit of the person against whom the warrant is issued or the persons who are required to execute the warrant would not render the warrant to be bad in law. What is material is that there is a power vested in the Court to issue a warrant and that power is to be exercised judiciously depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Being so merely because the warrant uses the expression like non-bailable and that such terminology is not to be found in either Section 70 or Section 71 of the Code that by itself cannot render the warrant bad in law. The argument is devoid of substance and is rejected accordingly. In view of the aforegoing discussion No. ground is made out warranting our interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court. We confirm the judgment and dismiss the appeal accordingly but with No. Guidelines while issuing non-bailable warrants - We feel that in order to prevent such a paradoxical situation we are faced with in the instant case and to check or obviate the possibility of misuse of an arrest warrant in addition to the statutory and constitutional requirements to which reference has been made above it would be appropriate to issue the following guidelines to be adopted in all cases where non-bailable warrants are issued by the Courts (a) All the High Court shall ensure that the Subordinate Courts use printed and machine numbered Form No. 2 for issuing warrant of arrest and each such form is duly accounted for; (b) Before authenticating the court must ensure that complete particulars of the case are mentioned on the warrant; (c) The presiding Judge of the court (or responsible officer specially authorized for the purpose in case of High Courts) issuing the warrant should put his full and legible signatures on the process also ensuring that Court seal bearing complete particulars of the Court is prominently endorsed thereon; (d) The Court must ensure that warrant is directed to a particular police officer (or authority) and unless intended to be open-ended it must be returnable whether executed or unexecuted on or before the date specified therein; (e) Every Court must maintain a register (in the format given below) in which each warrant of arrest issued must be entered chronologically and the serial number of such entry reflected on the top right hand of the process; (f) No. warrant of arrest shall be issued without being entered in the register mentioned above and the concerned court shall periodically check/monitor the same to confirm that every such process is always returned to the court with due report and placed on the record of the concerned case; (g) A register similar to the one in Clause (e) supra shall be maintained at the concerned police station. The Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station shall ensure that each warrant of arrest issued by the Court when received is duly entered in the said register and is formally entrusted to a responsible officer for execution; (h) Ordinarily the Courts should not give a long time for return or execution of warrants as experience has shown that warrants are prone to misuse if they remain in control of executing agencies for long; (i) On the date fixed for the return of the warrant the Court must insist upon a compliance report on the action taken thereon by the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station or the Officer In-charge of the concerned agency; (j) The report on such warrants must be clear cogent and legible and duly forwarded by a superior police officer so as to facilitate fixing of responsibility in case of misuse; (k) In the event of warrant for execution beyond jurisdiction of the Court issuing it procedure laid down in Sections 78 and 79 of the Code must be strictly and scrupulously followed; and (l) In the event of cancellation of the arrest warrant by the Court the order cancelling warrant shall be recorded in the case file and the register maintained. A copy thereof shall be sent to the concerned authority requiring the process to be returned unexecuted forthwith. The date of receipt of the unexecuted warrant will be entered in the aforesaid registers. A copy of such order shall also be supplied to the accused.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant
2. Execution of Cancelled Warrant by Police Officer
3. Compensation for Wrongful Detention and Humiliation
4. Validity of "Non-Bailable" Terminology in Warrants
5. Guidelines for Issuance and Execution of Warrants

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant
The Supreme Court scrutinized the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the Appellant by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Court observed that the warrant was issued merely due to the Appellant's absence on 7th August 2002, without proper application of mind. The Court emphasized that non-bailable warrants should not be issued mechanically but only after recording satisfaction that it is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court referred to the precedent set in *Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.* (2007) 12 SCC 1, which cautioned courts to strike a balance between societal interests and personal liberty before issuing non-bailable warrants. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the issuance of the non-bailable warrant was manifestly unjustified given the nature of the complaint and the Appellant's regular attendance in court.

2. Execution of Cancelled Warrant by Police Officer
The Court addressed the conduct of Respondent No. 2, the police officer who executed the cancelled warrant. The Court noted that the warrant was executed on a national holiday, despite being cancelled on 12th August 2002. The Court found that Respondent No. 2 acted in collusion with the complainant to humiliate the Appellant publicly. The Court emphasized that any form of degrading treatment falls within the inhibition of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court agreed with the High Court that Respondent No. 2 did not perform his duty responsibly and played with the personal liberty of the Appellant in a high-handed manner.

3. Compensation for Wrongful Detention and Humiliation
The Appellant sought additional compensation for the humiliation and harassment suffered due to the wrongful execution of the cancelled warrant. The Court acknowledged its power to award compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, as established in cases like *Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Anr.* (1983) 4 SCC 141 and *Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors.* (1993) 2 SCC 746. However, the Court concluded that the Appellant did not deserve further monetary compensation beyond the Rs. 2,000/- already awarded by the High Court. The Court noted that some blame lay with the Appellant for not procuring a copy of the cancellation order promptly.

4. Validity of "Non-Bailable" Terminology in Warrants
The Court addressed the issue of whether courts can issue a warrant termed as "non-bailable," given that such terminology is not found in the Code of Criminal Procedure or Form 2 of the Second Schedule. The Court held that the endorsement of "non-bailable" on a warrant is to facilitate the executing authority and the person against whom the warrant is issued. The Court concluded that the use of the term "non-bailable" does not render the warrant bad in law and rejected the argument against its validity.

5. Guidelines for Issuance and Execution of Warrants
To prevent misuse of arrest warrants and to obviate the possibility of wrongful detention, the Court issued comprehensive guidelines for the issuance and execution of warrants:
- Use of printed and machine-numbered Form No. 2 for issuing warrants.
- Complete particulars of the case to be mentioned on the warrant.
- Full and legible signatures of the presiding judge on the warrant.
- Warrants to be directed to a particular police officer and returnable by a specified date.
- Maintenance of a register for issued warrants, ensuring each warrant is accounted for and returned with a compliance report.
- Clear and cogent reports on executed warrants, forwarded by a superior police officer.
- Strict adherence to procedures for warrants executed beyond jurisdiction.
- Immediate communication of warrant cancellation to the concerned authority.

The Court expected all High Courts to issue directions to subordinate courts to implement these guidelines within six months.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the High Court's judgment and emphasizing the need for judicious issuance and execution of warrants to protect individual liberty and prevent misuse of judicial processes.