Whether Summoning And Detaining A Person Without Any Crime Registered Against Him amounts to illegal detention?

 The report of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, after due inquiry into the matter sets out the factual details of the matter. The report indicates that the contempt petitioner was not only summoned to Akividu Police Station in the name of counseling but was also detained. In the circumstances, there was clear violation of the directions issued by this Court not only in Arnesh Kumar1 but also in the case in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 . The mere fact that no crime was registered, could not be a defence, nor would it be an escape from the rigour of the decisions rendered by this Court.

As a matter of fact, summoning the person without there being any crime registered against him and detaining him would itself be violative of basic principles. In the circumstances, the Division Bench was not right and justified in setting aside the view taken by the Single Judge of the High Court. We, therefore, allow this appeal. While setting aside the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, we restore the decision of the Single Judge.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1003 OF 2021

M.A KHALIQ & ORS. Vs ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. 

Dated: September 15, 2021.

Print Page

Whether persons of same gender are entitled to lead Live-in Relationship?

But, apart from the question whether two adult persons of the same gender can be permitted to be in relationship and can they be permitted to live together, a larger question arises as to whether the liberty of a person who had attained majority can be curtailed. In the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Sony Gerry V. Gerry Douglas (MANU/SC/0180/2018 : AIR 2018 SC 346) it was observed that;

"it needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an individual's life has its own significance. She/he is entitled to make her/his choice. The Courts cannot, as long as the choice remains, assume the role of parens patriae. The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the law permits and the Courts should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father. We say so without any reservation."
7. With respect to permitting of 'live-in relationship' the hon'ble Supreme Court in Nandakumar and another V. State of Kerala and others (MANU/SC/0505/2018: AIR 2018 SC 2254) observed that, even if the parties are not competent to enter into the wedlock, they have the right to live together even outside the wedlock. It would not be out of place to mention that 'live-in relationship' is now recognized by the Legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Based on principles enumerated as above, this court cannot find that the 'live-in relationship' between the petitioner and the alleged detenue will in any manner offend any provisions of law or it will become a crime in any manner. On the other hand, if the jurisdiction vested on this court is not exercised, it will amount to permitting a violation of the Constitutional right to perpetrate.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP (Crl.) No. 372 of 2018

Decided On: 24.09.2018

 Sreeja S.  Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
C.K. Abdul Rehim and R. Narayana Pisharadi, JJ.

Print Page

Whether writ of habeas corpus can be issued if the magistrate has given police custody of accused?

 The question as to whether a writ of habeas corpus could
be maintained in respect of a person who is in police custody
pursuant to a remand order passed by the jurisdictional
Magistrate in connection with the offence under investigation,
this issue has been considered in the case of Saurabh Kumar
through his father Vs. Jailor, Koneila Jail and Anr., 1 and
Manubhai Ratilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.2 It
is no more res integra. In the present case, admittedly, when
the writ petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was
1 (2014) 13 SCC 436
2 (2013) 1 SCC 314

filed by the respondent on 18th/19th March, 2018 and decided
by the High Court on 21st March, 2018 her husband Rizwan
Alam Siddique was in police custody pursuant to an order
passed by the Magistrate granting his police custody in
connection with FIR No.I31
vide order dated 17th March, 2018
and which police remand was to enure till 23rd March, 2018.
Further, without challenging the stated order of the
Magistrate, a writ petition was filed limited to the relief of
habeas corpus. In that view of the matter, it was not a case of
continued illegal detention but the incumbent was in judicial
custody by virtue of an order passed by the jurisdictional
Magistrate, which was in force, granting police remand during
investigation of a criminal case. Resultantly, no writ of habeas
corpus could be issued.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1124 OF 2018

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee 
Dated:September 05, 2018.
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Print Page

Whether sanction for prosecution of police officers is required if accused was illegally detained prior to formal arrest?

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the contention
advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the respondents, we
are of the view, that the decision rendered by this Court in the
P.P. Unnikrishnan case (supra) is clear and emphatic. The same does
not leave any room for making any choice. It is apparent, that the
official arrest of Neeraj Kumar in terms of the provisions of the
‘Code’, referred to hereinabove, would extend during the period
from 28.06.1999 to 30.06.1999. The above period of apprehension can
legitimately be considered as, having been made “while acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties”. The
factual position expressed by the appellants is, that Neeraj Kumar
was not detained for the period from 24.06.1999 to 28.06.1999. His
detention during the above period, if true, in our considered view,
would certainly not emerge from the action of the accused while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official
duties. If it emerges from evidence adduced before the trial
Court, that Neeraj Kumar was actually detained during the period
from 24.06.1999 to 28.06.1999, the said detention cannot be taken
to have been made by the accused while acting or purporting to act
in the discharge of their official duties. More so, because it is
not the case of the appellants, that they had kept Neeraj Kumar in
jail during the period from 24.06.1999 to 28.06.1999. If they had
not detained him during the above period, it is not open to anyone
to assume the position, that the detention of Neeraj Kumar, during
the above period, was while acting or purporting to act in the
discharge of their official duties. Therefore, in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case, based on the legal position
declared by this Court in the P.P. Unnikrishnan case (supra), we
are of the considered view, that sanction for prosecution of the
accused in relation to the detention of Neeraj Kumar for the period
from 24.06.1999 to 28.06.1999, would not be required, before a
Court of competent jurisdiction, takes cognizance with reference tothe alleged arrest of Neeraj Kumar. We therefore hereby, endorse

the conclusions drawn by the High Court, to the above effect. 

“REPORTABLE”
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.565 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.3406 of 2008)
SURINDERJIT SINGH MAND & ANR. .
V
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.


Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
Citation: 2016(3) ALLMR(JOURNAL) 82,(2016) 8 SCC722

Print Page

Whether accused can claim compensation for illegal detention before high court when it is not granted by session court?

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised an
objection that the petitioner had filed a Criminal Revision
Application in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kopergaon,

Dist. Ahmednagar, wherein he has also prayed for compensation
on account of his illegal detention, however, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has refused to award any such
compensation. According to the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, the petitioner, therefore, could not have sought the
same relief in the present petition. There appears no substance
in the objection so raised. We have gone through the order
passed by the Sessions Court, while disposing of the Criminal
Revision application filed by the present petitioner, the sessions
Court has declined to consider the request of granting any
compensation, stating that it does not fall within its jurisdiction.
The order so passed, therefore, may not come in the way of
petitioner to claim compensation in the present writ petition.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 275 OF 2006

Balasaheb Sadanand Bhagat @ Bhakta,  Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
 P.R. BORA, JJ.

 Judgment pronounced on : 14th August, 2014.
Citation;2015 CRLJ(NOC)470 BOM

Print Page