The Madras High Court has ordered the State Government to compensate a woman who was falsely accused in a case under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956 with Rs 2 lakh.
A single bench of Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the State could not avoid liability by claiming that the officers involved were not performing their official duties.
Furthermore, the court rejected the State’s argument that the charge sheet was quashed as a result of a thorough investigation conducted by it, and thus it was not obligated to pay compensation.
“It is clear that the right of privacy and reputation of the writ petitioner have been sullied by the act of the police officials for which the State is certainly responsible. The State cannot escape from contending that the officials at the station level have unauthorisedly done the said act and hence, the State is not liable for the same,” the bench stated.
Justice Vijayakumar noted that the woman’s arrest and detention had received a great deal of media attention, infringing on her right to privacy. As a result, the State was obligated to compensate the woman, it added.
In this case, the petitioner was arrested on the basis of a complaint filed by one Sasikumar under various provisions of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956. She was detained at the Women’s Home in Madurai for 13 days before being released on bail.
The case was brought against her due to tenancy disputes and personal vengeance by private respondents, according to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil.
Sasikumar, the de facto complainant, also testified that he was unaware of the complaint and that his signatures were obtained on blank paper by police officers when he visited the station in connection with a traffic violation. The petitioner approached the High Court based on the Deputy Superintendent’s report, and the charge sheet against her was later quashed.
The petitioner filed the current case to seek compensation of one crore rupees from the State and the relevant authorities for the embarrassment she and her family suffered as a result of the false case and false incarceration.
The State objected to the compensation, claiming that the petitioner could not be compensated because she was exonerated only with the State’s help and assistance. It was also argued that the Inspector had abused the legal process, and thus there was no vicarious liability because he was not performing legal duties.
The concerned official also objected to the compensation, claiming that he had no personal vengeance. He claimed that he had only done his job without malice or bias. He also argued that if the petitioner had been wronged, she should have pursued the alternative remedy of filing a defamation suit in civil court.
The bench held that the State could not take advantage of the Deputy Superintendent’s investigation because it had not taken any action against the officers involved for filing the false case.
