MONICA KUMAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

                         [2017] 8 S.C.R. 550


A                      MONICA KUMAR & ANR.
                                     v.
                         STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
                    (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 27 of2012)
B                           AUGUST 08, 2017
              [A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ,)
         Police Reforms - Misconduct by Police officials - Rights of
  citizens - Writ Petition u/Art.32 of the Constitution - According to
c Petitioners, they had some issues with the Chairman of a medical
  college and that Police acting under his influence had harassed
  them - Pursuant thereto, Court issued notice in the writ petition
  and ordered dasti service to the unserved respondents - Following
  the direction, the petitioners went to serve notice upon the SHO,
  but were assaulted by the police officials - Petitioners filed
D complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, who refused to
  accept the same - Against this, Petitioners filed an application in
  the pending writ petition - Writ petition was dismissed with direc-
  tion to approach High Court u/Art.226 - High Court dismissed it
  with liberty to the petitioners to file application uls.156(3) - Order
E of High Court was challenged by Petitioners by filing SLP- Supreme
  Court directed inquiry in the matter - Conduct of the police
  officials was found to be blemished - Supreme Court directed
  initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the concerned police
  officials - Immediately thereafter. Police officials went to the place
  of the petitioners, to put pressure on them to withdraw their cases;
F and one policeman again assaulted the petitioners and filed FIR
   against them u/ss. 324,33213531504 JPC - Held: Police needs to be
  sensitized about the rights of citizens and the civilised manner in
   which police is required to maintain law and order - Training of
  police is required so that use of force on citizens is reduced and
G Police officials become more sensitive towards them and fulfill their
   role as protector of citizens - There is also a need to deal with
   erring police officials by taking stern measures whose actions amount
   to 'misconduct' or may be 'criminal' in nature - Letting off the
   erring officials by only administering a warning may not be
   appropriate as done in instant case - Besides the conduct of police
H
                                    550
     MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                     551


officials, version of the petitioners was also found to be A
exaggerated, regarding the incident when police had visited and
assaulted them, therefore, suspension of police officials not directed
- However, after assessing the situation, the FIR filed against the
petitioners quashed and direction issued io provide adequate
protection to them.
                                                                     B
      Disposing of the petition, the Court
       HELD: 1. Police needs to be sensitised about the rights of
citizens and the civilised manner in which police is required to
maintain law and order in this country. From time to time, various
.sugg~stions have been given by National Crime Records Bureau, c
National Police Commission as well as certain NGOs like Human
Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Commonwealth Human
Rights Initiative, etc. to bring in reforms in terms of amendments
 in Indian Police Act, appointing commissions to deal with cases
 of police brutalities, etc. Not that efforts are lacking in bringing
 police reform. But the humane face of the police is still to be D
 seen. Police officials falling in this category are far and few. It is
 high time that training of police in this direction is given a concrete
 shape so that it brings about positive results, and the usage of
 force on citizens is reduced and police officials become more
 sensitive towards them and fulfill their role as the protector of E
 citizens. The Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU)
 has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the
 National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to develop a new
 online advance programme on human rights for the police
 personnel. It is also intended to update the contents of the basic
 trainers' programme for police personnel. It is hoped that IGNOU F
 with NHRC would be able to develop requisite programme of
 high quality which would be able to sensitise the police personnel.
 Further, the training under this programme shall be administered
 to the stake holders in great measures. In this conte~t, there is
 also a need to deal with erring police officials by taking stern G
 measures whose actions amount to •misconduct' or may even be
  •criminal' in nature. Letting these erring officials lightly, as has
  been done in the instant case, by only administering a warning
  may not be appropriate. [Para 24] (568-E-G; 569-A-C]

                                                                      H
552            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A            2. When this Court ordered departmental inquiry against
      the erring officials, the Disciplinary Authority dealt with the matter
      in a lukewarm fashion by sparing those officials with a warning
      only. It seems that too was done just to complete the formalities
      as there was a direction by this Court for taking an action against
 B    them but for that, no action would have been taken by the
      Disciplinary Authority. Thus, atrocity committed by the police
      on the hapless citizens is brushed aside lightly. In contrast,
      incident of spraying pepper by a lady, faced with the situation
      when police officers had come to their premises and were
      threatening them to withdraw the cases coupled with slap given
 C    to her as well as her brother, is taken so seriously that not only
      FIR is lodged but chargesheet is also filed within ten days.
      Likewise, insofar as act of writing apology is concerned, maybe it
      was not extracted by putting any pressure. However, the very
      fact that the petitioners were taken to the police station and were
 D    in an atmosphere of fear that surrounded there, when this letter
      was written is sufficient to hold that it was not a voluntary act of
      the petitioners. No credence can be given to such a letter. Both
      the petitioners are Doctors by profession. The entire attempt is
       ti! put a pressure of another kind, once the police have found
       that their threats to the petitioners to withdraw the cases have
 E     not proved successful. [Para 19[ [567-C-F[
             3. (i) In the aforesaid circumstances, the prayer of the
      petitioners in this writ petition is accepted so far as it relates to
      quashing the proceedings arising out of FIR dated December
      20, 2011 and the chargesheet dated January 2, 2012 filed pursuant
 F    thereto. It is ordered accordingly.
         (ii) Since, version of the petitioners in respect of incident
   of December 20, 2011,when the (:;)lice officials had gone to the
   place of the petitioners to put pressure on the petitioners to
   withdraw their cases, is found to be exaggerated, it is not proper
 G to direct respondent No. 1 to suspend respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
         (iii) Also, respondent No. 1 is directed to provide an
   adequate protection to the petitioners after assessing the situation
   and to ensure that petitioners are not harassed or threatened by
   the police officials in any manner. [Paras 20-221 [567-G-H; 568-
 H A-Bl
      MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                            553


      Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC.                A
      746 : (1993) 2 SCR 581; Ruda/ Shah v. State of Bihar
      (1983) 4 SCC 141 : [1983) 3 SCR 508; Joginder Kumar
      v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) 4 SCC 260; D.K. Basu
      v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 : [1996) 10
      Suppl. SCR 284; Anita Thakur & Ors. v. Government
                                                                             B
      of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (2016) 15 SCC 525 -
      referred to.
                           Case Law Reference
[1993) 2 SCR 581                 referred to           Para 23
                                                                             c
[1983) 3 SCR 508                 referred to           Para 23
(1994) 4 sec 260                 referred to           Para 23
[1996) 10 Suppl. SCR 284         referred to           Para 23
(2016) 15 sec 525                 referred to          Para 23               D

      CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
(Criminal) No. 27 of2012.

      Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia
                                                                             E
      Prashant Bhushan, Devesa Kumar Agnihotri, Pranav Sachdeva,
Advs. for the Petitioners.

       D. K. Singh, Ardendumauli Kumar Prasad, Ms. Koma! Mundhra,
Satrrabh Agrawal, Abhisth Kumar, Shibashish Misra, Kuna! Verma, Advs.
for the Respondents.                                                         F

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       · A.K. SIKRI, J. I. This case depicts sordid state of affairs about
the functioning of Police and demonstrates that much police reforms are
still needed. The events that have occurred in this case which have          G
forced the petitioners to approach this Court directly by filing instant
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia show that proper
police training with emphasis on sensitising them about the rights of the
 citizens is required.
                                                                             H
554            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         (2017] 8 S.C.R.


A          2. The present petition has its genesis in the incident that occurred
    on May 28, 2009. Rather, it goes a little earlier in point of time. The
    petitioners who are siblings did their MBBS course in the Santosh Medical
    College at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. They had certain issues with P.
    Mahalingam, Chairman of the Maharaji Educational Trust which has
  B established the aforesaid medical college. In order to redress their
    grievances, they filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 33 of 2009 in this
    Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In the said writ
    petition, they had complained of the harassment meted out to them by
    the said Chairman as well as by the police which was acting under the
    influence of the said Chairman. On May 13, 2009, the Court issued
  C notice in the writ petition. An order was passed by the Registrar of this
    Court on May 22, 2009 directing service of dasti notice on the unserved
    respondents which included SHO of Police Station, Sector-39, Noida,
    Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh who was arrayed as respondent
    No. 4 in the writ petition. In order to serve the notice upon the SHO, the
. D petitioners went to the Police Station on May 28, 2009 at I 0:30 am. The
    SHO and his subordinates started brutally assaulting the petitioners with
    lathis, shoes and fists and caused numerous injuries on all parts of their
    bodies. The petitioners got themselves examined at Lok Nayak
    Government Hospital, New Delhi and an x-ray of petitioner No. I was
    also taken which disclosed a fracture. A plaster was put on her left
  E hand. The petitioners made a written complaint to the Senior
    Superintendent of Police (SSP), Noida on May 29, 2009 itself. However,
     he refused to accept the complaint. Against this apathy and inaction on
     the part of SSP in not agreeing to register the case, the petitioners filed
     Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 9226 of2009 in the aforesaid writ
  F petition. Order was passed in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition that
     the same be placed along with the main matter. It is also observed that
     in the meantime, the petitioners may approach the District Magistrate,
     Noida regarding their grievances. The petitioners approached the District
     Magistrate, Noida, but they were informed that he was on vacation.
     The City Magistrate, however, called the petitioners to his office and
  G took the video recorded statements but did not do anything in the matter.
     On July 20, 2009, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
     33 of 2009 and granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the High
     Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if so advised.
     Thereafter, the petitioners filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 23839 of
 H
        MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                       555
                     [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

 2009 in the High Court praying inter alia for a CBI inquiry into the A
·incident which took place on May 28, 2009 when the petitioners had
 gone to serve dasti summons on respondent No. 4. The High Court,
 however, held in the impugned order that in this case, the FIR had not
 been registered and there was no question for considering any prayer
 for CBI inquiry at this stage and instead directed that the petitioners B
 may file an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
 Procedure, 1973 and in case any such application is filed, the Magistrate
 may pass appropriate orders thereon. With the aforesaid observations,
 the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
        3. This order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Special
 Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 666 of2010, which became Criminal Appeal C
 No. 2323 of2011 after the leave was granted in that matter. The interim
 direction dated May 11, 20 I0 was given by the Court, after hearing the
 counsel for the parties, whereby the District and Sessions Judge, Gautam
 Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh was directed to inquire into the incident of
 May 28, 2009, when the petitioners had gone to serve the dasti summons D
·of this Court to the SHO of Police Station Gautam Budh Nagar. The
 District and Sessions Judge assigned the inquiry to Additional Chief
 Judicial Magistrate-Ill. He conducted the necessary inquiry and submitted
 his report dated November 16, 2010. Finding truth in the allegations
 made by the petitioners that they were mercilessly beaten up and thrashed
 by the police officials, objections to this report were allowed to be filed E
 by the respondents, which were filed. Matter was heard thereafter and
 this Court decided Criminal Appeal No. 2323 of2011 by detailed order
 dated December 16, 2011 accepting the report of the Additional Chief
 Judicial Magistrate. Since as per that report, conduct of some police
 officers were found to be blemished which also amounted to misconduct F
  in performance of their duties, this Court directed the State of Uttar
  Pradesh/Disciplinary Authority to treat the report of the Additional Chief
  Judicial Magistrate as a preliminary report and initiate disciplinary
  proceedings against the concerned police personnel. Petitioners were
  also given liberty to file criminal complaint under Section 200 of the
 .Code.of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .on the basis of conclusion in the said G
  report. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the aforesaid
  judgment dated December 16, 2011 passed by this Court which also
  captures the conclusion of the inquiry conducted by the Additional Chief
  Judicial Magistrate as well:
                                                                             H
556    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A     "7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we passed
      orders on l l.05.20 l 0 directing the District and Sessions Judge,
      Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., to enquire into the incident of
      28.05.2009 when the appellants had gone to serve the dasti
      summons of this Court and pursuant to the aforesaid order dated
      11.05.20 l 0, the District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar,
B
      U.P., assigned the inquiry to the Additional Chief Judicial
      Magistrate III of Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., who after
      conducting the enquiry has submitted the report dated
      16.11.20 IO. We have considered the objections to the report
      and heard learned counsel for the parties. The conclusions in
 c    the report dated 16.11.2010 of the Additional- Chief Judicial
      Magistrate III of Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., are extracted
      hereinbelow:
      "l. Ms. Monica Kumar and Shri Manish Kumar had gone to
      Sector 39 Police Station in NO IDA on 28.05.2009 for serving a
D     dasti notice ofHon'ble 6 Supreme Court upon Shri Anil Samania,
      Station House Officer, Sector 39 Police Station in NOIDA.
      2. Ms. Monica Kumar and Shri Manish Kumar were subjected
      to brutality in Sector 39 Police Station, NOIDA by Shri Anil
      Samania, Inspector, Shri J.K. Gangwar, Sub Inspector and few
 E    Constables.
      3. Tailored entries have been made on 28.05.2009 in the General
      Diary of the Police Station for cover up.
      4. The complaint in the matter was made with serious allegations
      against Shri Anil Samania but the complaint was not dealt with
 F    properly and the matter was given a decent burial.
      5. The Sub-Inspector, In-Charge of the Complaint Cell in the
      office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh
      Nagar, Shri Rishi Pal Singh, failed in his duty to place the
      complaint before the higher authorities for proper action in the
 G    matter.
      6. The Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Gautam Budh Nagara,
      Shri Ajay Sahdav, failed in his supervisory duty in as much as
      without perusal of the accusations in the complaint and the action
      taken/required thereon, allowed entombment of the grievance
 H    in the complaint.
 MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                            557
              [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

   7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Bagar A
   Shri Ashok Kumar Singh appears to have shut his eyes to what
   had happened in the Police Station on 28.05.2009.
   8. Involvement of Dr. P. Mahalingam in the incident on
   28.05.2009 could not be established. Thus, it cannot be said that
   the complainants were packed down at the will of the Chairman        B
   ofSantosh Medical College, Ghaziabad, Shri P. Mahalingam."
  8. Thus, the conclusions in the report dated 16.11.2010 of the
  Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate quoted above are that the
  appellants were subjected to brutality in Sector 39 Police Station,
  NO IDA, by Inspector Anil Samania (Respondent No.4), Shri J.K. c
  Gangwar, Sub-Inspector and few constables and tailored entries
  were made on 28.05.2009 in the General Diary of the Police Station
  for a cover up and when a complaint was made to the Senior
  Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., the Sub-
  Inspector, In-charge of the Complaint Cell Shri Rishipal Singh
  failed in his duty to place the complaint before the higher authorities D
  for proper action in the matter. The further conclusion in the report
  dated 16.11.2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is
. that the Superintendent of Police (Traffic), GautamBudh Nagar,
  U.P., Ajay Sahdav, failed in his supervisory duty and allowed
  entombment of the gri~:vance in the complaint and the Senior E
  Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, Ashok Kumar
  Singh appears to have shut his eyes to what had happened in the
  Police Station on 28.05.2009. The conclusions in the report dated
  16.11.2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate prima facie ·
  establish acts and/or omissions of the various police personnel
  which were committed when the appellants had gone 8 to the F
  police station to serve the dasti summons issued by this Court and
  which amount to misconduct of serious nature. We, therefore,
  direct the respondent No. I to treat the report dated 16.11.2010 of
  the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III of Gautam Budh Nagar,
  U.P., as a preliminary report and initiate disciplinary proceedings G
  against the police personnel named in the conclusions thereof and
  conduct the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the
  relevant rules, giving to the police personnel reasonable opportunity
· of being heard in respect of the charges as provided in the Rules

                                                                        H
558           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           (2017] 8 S.C.R.


A          and in Article 311(2) of the Constitution and complete the
           disciplinary proceedings within one year from today.
           9. It will also be open for the appellants to file criminal complaint
           under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of the conclusions in
           the report dated 16.11.2010 of the Additional Chief Judicial
 B         Magistrate III of Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., before the appropriate
           Magistrate for prosecuting only those police personnel who are
           alleged to have committed any offence, and if such a complaint is
           filed, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law.
            10. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the
 c          appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs."
          4. The aforesaid facts are stated as background facts to understand
   the reason for filing the present petition by the petitioners predicated on
   subsequent events that would be noticed hereinafter. Jn order to complete
   the narration of this prologue, we would also like to mention that on the
 D directions of this Court contained in its aforesaid judgment dated
   December 16, 2011, the Government of Uttar Pradesh had initiated
   disciplinary proceedings against the police officers who were indicted
   by the judicial inquiry for having committed brutalities on the petitioners.
   Inquiry was conducted and the conduct of the officers was found to be
   coloured with blemish. Thus, even in the disciplinary proceedings, incident
 E of May 28, 2009 was found proved against these police officers. This
   Court, however, is dismayed to find that for this serious misconduct, the
    police officers were let off by extending warning/admonition.
          5. With this prologue, we now advert to the facts which are the
      immediate cause of filing the present petition.
 F
          6. As mentioned above, on December 16, 2011, this Court passed
   the orders directing disciplinary proceedings against faulty police officers
   which included respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As per the petitioners, within
   four days of the passing of the judgment i.e. on December 20, 2011 at
   about 3 pm, the petitioners came to their home in Ghaziabad from Noida
 G and were stopped by the policemen in front of their house. A police jeep
   with about five policemen came and stopped their car just behind the
   petitioners' car. Then, these policemen came down from their car and
   started abusing the petitioners and pressurised them to withdraw all cases
   against Mr. Anil Samania, respondent No. 2 and Dr. P. Mahalingam.
 H The police even threatened them with serious consequences if they did
       MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                              559
                    [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

 not withdraw the cases. ·The petitioners were slapped also. The police         A
 even came inside the petitioners house forcing their way through the
 main gate, abusing and threatening them. The petitioners ran inside
 their house and closed the doors. After sometime, 15-20 policemen
 inqluding respondent No. 3/SHO ofVijay Nagar Police Station Mr. Anil
 Kumar came to the petitioners home. The SHO along with many
                                                                                B
.polic~men forced entry into the house of the petitioners by breaking the
 main and entry iron gates and wooden double doors of their house and
 barged inside the house. The SHO slapped the petitioners and dragged
 them outside their house and threw them in the police jeep. The police
 brought the petitioners to the Vijay Nagar Police Station. Further, the
 police (SHO) abused the petitioners and told them to withdraw all cases        C
 against the police - Mr. Anil Samania, others and Dr. Mahalingam and
 not to file anymore case. The police told the petitioners to see what they
 do if the petitioners keep on fighting with the police and said that they
 will detain the petitioners whole night and put attempted murder charges
 on them. Later in the night, the SHO called the petitioners into his cabin     D
 and told that he will only release them after they write an apology letter
 otherwise he will sent the petitioners to jail. They had no other option
 except to write an apology letter. The petitioners were detained in the
 Vijay Nagar Police Station until about 11 pm in the night. During this
 period, the police repeatedly kept on abusing and threatening them. The
 petitioners were released with the warning from the SHO that they see          E
'an end to all matters and compromise with Mr. Anil Samania and others
 and not make any more complaints/file any case against the police. The
 petitioners came to know on January 31, 2012 that an FIR and
 chargesheet has been filed against the petitioners under Sections 324/
 332/353/504 IPC. It is aileged that the Investigating Officer of the case
 has wrongly and malafidely conducted the investigation. The police             F
 have hurriedly submitted the chargesheet within ten days. The IO has
 not even taken statements of the petitioners contrary to what he is stating
 that he has taken the statements of the petitioners.
      ·7. This chargesheet against the petitioners disclosed the version
of the other side. It is alleged that petitioners had parked their vehicle in   G
the middle of the road near Santosh Medical College which was causing
obstruction in running of traffic on that road. It is stated that Annual
Function was also going on in the College at that time and when traffic
got stuck and high traffic jam was seen by the police patrolling party on
                                                                                H
560           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A duty, in order to maintain the law and order of that area, Constable Om
  Prakash, Batch No. 227 and Constable Dhruv Kumar, Batch No. 1895
  and Head Constable Brij Kishore Sharma, Batch No. 288 had request\!d
  petitioner No. 1 to park the car in a proper manner so that it could not
  obstruct the traffic on the road. Petitioner No. 1 got annoyed and started
B arguing with Head Constable Brij Kishore Sharma in a very abusive
  manner. In the meanwhile, petitioner No. 1 went inside the house and
  called petitioner No. 2 and she also came along with pepper spray in her
  hands. On exhortation of her brother i.e. petitioner No. 2, petitioner No.
   I sprayed the pepper in the eyes of the Head Constable Brij Kishore
  Sharma. On that mishappening, the fellow duty Constable, namely,
C Constable Om Prakash and Constable Dhruv Kumar handled the Head
  Constable Brij Kishore and immediately rushed to the Medi Max Hospital,
   Sector - 12, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P. and admitted the Head
   Constable Brij Kishore Sharma in a critical condition. Thereafter,
   Constable Om Prakash lodged a FIR of the above incident, which was
D registered as FIR No. 609 of2011 under Sections 324, 332/353/504 IPC
   dated December 20, 2011.
             8. On coming to know of the aforesaid FIR and the chargesheet
      filed pursuant thereto, present writ petition dated February 16, 2012 is
      filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:
 E          "(i) Issue appropriate writ directing respondent No. I to take
            appropriate action and punish the police - respondent Nos. 2 and
            3 for assaulting/detaining/registering a false case against the
            petitioners and causing contempt of the Court and interfering with
            the course of justice.
 F          (ii) Issue appropriate writ direct an independent investigation into
            the incident of December 20, 2011 by the CBI or SIT.
            (iii) Issue appropriate writ quashing the FIR No. 609 of 2011 dated
            December 20, 2011 and chargesheet No. 953 of 2011 dated
            January 2, 2012 filed against them.
 G          (iv) Issue appropriate writ directing the State ofU.P. to provide
            the petitioners protection as they are under immense and constant
            threat.
            (v) Issue appropriate writ restraining the respondents and police
            from causing the petitioners any further harassments, assaults
 H          and threats to them.
      MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                            561
                   [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

       (vi) Issue appropriate writ directing respondent No. 1 to suspend A
       respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and also those indicted by the judicial
       inquiry pending disciplinary proceedings.
       (vii) To pass such other orders or directions as this Court may
       deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
       case."                                                                B
        9. Show cause notice in this petition was issued pursuant thereto.
 Respondents have put in appearance and they have filed their reply
·affidavits, refuting the allegations made in the petition. Respondents
 have stuck to their versions on the incident of December 20, 2011 which
 has already been stated above.                                              c
       10. In view of the aforesaid conflicting versions about the
occurrence on December 20, 2011, this Court after hearing the counsel
for the parties, passed order dated July 5, 2016 directing the District and
Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad to nominate a Judicial Officer to hold an
inquiry into the said incident by following an appropriate procedure in D
consonance with the principles ofnatural justice and submit his/her report.
We would like to reproduce the said orders in its entirety hereunder:
       "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
       the record.
          This Court vide its order dated 16.12.2011, directed the E
       Government ofUttar Pradesh to initiate disciplinary proceedings
       against respondent nos. 2 & 3 for having committed brutalities on
       the petitioners. We find that respondent no. 3, accompanied by
       several police officials, visited the petitioners at their home in·
       Ghaziabad on 20.12.2011 at about 03.00 p.m., forced them to F
       withdraw all cases against the police, assaulted them and threatened
       to encounter them. It is alleged that the police dragged the
       petitioners outside their house, threw them in the police jeep,
       brought them to the Vijay Nagar Police Station and detained them
       in the Police Station till 11.00 p.m. During this period the police
       repeatedly kept on abusing and threatening the petitioners. G
       Respondent no. 3 released the petitioners after he got apology
       letter forcibly signed by the petitioners. It is further alleged that a
       false criminal case was also registered against the petitioners on
       the very same day to pressurize them. The petitioners reported
       the said incident in written complaint dated 22.12.2011 to the H
562           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A          Director General of Police, Lucknow, on which, till date, no action
           has been taken.
              In view of the above, we feel that a prima facie case is made
           out by the petitioners for conducting an inquiry into the alleged
           incident that took place on 20.12.2011 in order to find out as to
 B         whether the version of the petitioners herein is correct and if any
           false FIR is lodged against them on the basis of whi ch a
           chargesheet has been filed in the court.
             We, accordingly, direct the learned District and Sessions Judge,
           Ghaziabad to nominate a Judicial Officer, preferably of the rank
 c         ofAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, to hold an inquiry into the
           said incident by following an appropriate procedure in consonance
           with the principles of natural justice. The concerned officer shall
           make an endeavour to complete the inquiry within the period of
           three months and submit his/her report to this Court before the
           next date of hearing.
 D
              List the matter on 07.11.2016."
          11. The Additional ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad conducted
   the inquiry and forwarded his report in a sealed cover. It was opened in
   the Court on November 7, 2016 and direction was given to the Registry
 E of the Court to supply a copy of the said report to all the parties.
            12. None of the parties have filed any objection to this report.
           13. Perusal of the report shows that the Inquiring Officer recorded
   the statements of various persons including the petitioners who stuck to
   th~ir versions of the incident. Statements of the parents of the petitioners
 F were also recorded. The Inquiring Officer, thereafter, recorded the
   statements of many police officials and certain other independent persons/
   witnesses who had seen the occurrence on December 20, 2011 and also
   those who were privy to the happenings when the petitioners were taken
   to the Police Station on that day and had written the purported apology
 G letter. The report further reveals that the concerned Judicial Officer
   focused on two incidents which took place on the fateful day. First
    incident was about the altercation which took place over the alleged
   parking of the car by the petitioners. Second incident has been divided
    into two parts - first part pertains to the spray of pepper in the eyes of
    the Constable. According to the petitioners, the police officials had come
 H
      MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                            563
                   [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

to their house and threatened to withdraw the cases when pepper was A
sprayed on Constable whereas version of the police officials was that it
was an unprovoked attack on one of the Constables. Second facet of
the second incident relates to happenings in the Police Station where the
petitioners had written their apology.
        14. Insofar as the first incide.nt is concerned, the Judicial Officer B
in its categorical finding accepts the version of the petitioners and has
concluded as under:
       "Looking into the probability of cross versions and evidence laid
       down by the parties thereto, keeping in view the earlier complaints
       against the police made by the complainants the versions ofEW 1       c
     · and EW 2 regarding first incident of abusing and threatening and
       accepted spray of obnoxious chilly spray. It is also observed that
       there was sufficient space as has been shown in the site plan of
       the place of occurrence annexed with this report through which
       the police vehicle was in a position to go ahead without making       D
       much hue and cry in the name of blockade of traffic.
         Taking into account all the fact and circumstances cumulatively,
      it transpires that there is no reason to disbelieve the complainants
      _versions supported by EW 3 and EW 4. Thus, it is concluded that
      the complainants version, regarding first incident appears to be
      correct and believable."                                               E
       15. On the second incident, the findings are that there was
unauthorised entry into the house of the petitioners. At the same time,
version of the petitioners is found to be exaggerated. The report records:
       "Two private witnesses, Hemant and Ajay Kumar (EW 20 and F
     · EW 21) have stated on oath that about 3.30 pm on 20'h December
       2011 he had seen some police personnel knocking at the main iron
       gate of the complainants and none was coming out from the house
       of the complainants to open the main gate. After 45 minutes one
       of the police personnel climbed on the boundary wall of the
       complainants house and went inside and opened the main h'on G
       gate and police personnel entered into the premises of complainants
       after bearing helmets to avoid any obnoxious spray. They entered
       in the house of complainants, caught hold Manish Kumar and
       came out of the house. Complainant Monica Kumar followed
                                                                             H
564           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A          Manish Kumar. The police went from the spot along with Monica
           and Manish Kumar.
               The statements ofEW 9, EW 12, EW 15, EW 20 and EW 21
      reveal the following factual aspects:
           (i)About4.30-5.00 pm on201h December2011 police personnel
 B            have climbed over the boundary wall of the house of the
              complainants i.e. K-8, Pratap Vihar, Vijay Nagar and entered
              the main gate of the complainants to make entry in the premises
              of the complainants i.e. they did not climb over the roofof the
              complainants. Thus, the fact of climbing up over the roof of
 c            the complainants of police personnel is exaggeration of the
              complainants.
           (ii) The police, during investigation had entered into the house of
               the complainants against their will but not broken the wooden
               doors of the complainants house. Thus, breaking of main gate
 D              and wooden doors of the complainants house is exaggeration
                of the complainants. However, it appears to be true that Manish
                Kumar was caught hold by the police personnel against his
                will.
            (iii) The chilly spray bottle was recovered from the possession of
 E             the Monica Kumar at about 4.30-5.00 pm at her house.
            (iv) Both the complainants were not only asked to appear before
                IO of PS Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad rather they were forcibly
                brought to police station in the police jeep.
            (v) Complainants were not dragged by using force to bring them
 F              to police station in the second incident. Thus, the facts,
                circumstances, time and place of first phase of the second
                incident which happened in the house of the complainants
                appears to be true upto some extent."
           16. Dealing with the first facet of the second incident, viz. spraying
 G of the pepper, the findings are that spraying of pepper is admitted by the
   petitioners themselves. It is also recorded that they had written the
   apology of their own and they were not forced or compelled to do so.
   The Inquiring Officer, at the end of his report, has recorded his conclusions
   in the following manner:
 H
                                                                 ·-···---



       MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                            565
                    [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

                         "CONCLUSION                                          A
        From the statements ofEWs on oath and complaint made by the
: complainants to Director General of Police, following concl_usions may
  be ea8ily drawn:
       (i) Only one slap was made by one police wala on the body of
           both the complainants in the campus of their house not inside B
           the closed room.
       (ii) There was no instant danger of transgression to the body of
           Monica Kumar justifying her to spray liquid chilly in the eye of
           police personnel.
                                                                              c
       (iii) Complainants were already engaged in several rounds of cases/
            complaints against police in subordinate courts and in the
            Supreme Court.
       (iv) In second round incident policemen had come in only one
           police jeep, it means they were not 20-25 in numbers. The D
           number of police personnel appears to be exaggerated and
           varying in complainants statements and statements of EW 20
           andEW 21.
       (v) Although, complainants were taken to the police station Vijay
           Nagar in the same jeep but there is no reliable evidence that      E
           they were dragged from inside their house to the police jeep.
       (vi) In the second round of incident police did not climb up to the
           roof of the complainants house or on the roof of neighbour's
           house rather one police wala entered in the campus by cros~ing
           over the boundary wall. He opened the main iron gate through       F
           which other police personnel could enter into.the premises.
       (vii) No iron or double wooden gate was broken. On this point
           story is exaggerated.
       (viii) Complainants were not slapped in the police station. Further
           complainants have put an exaggerated story here also.              G
           From the statements of complainants and their parents, it
        transpires that police had certainly pressurised them to withdraw
        the cases against Anil Samania and Mahalingam. Thus, version
        of petitioners/complainants regarding 2nd set of incident despite
                                                                              H
566            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A           certain specific exaggeration appears to be true and correct,
            however, FIR on the basis of which chargesheet has been filed
            against the petitioners also appears to be based on the true facts."
         17. When we telescope the aforesaid report into the entire
  framework, we find that the case put up by the petitioners is broadly
B accepted though some exaggerations in their versions are found. Even
  after eschewing the exaggerations, the facts established on record are
  asunder:
             The police officials had gone to the place of the petitioners on
   December 20, 2011 i.e. immediately after the directions were given by
 c this Court in its judgment dated December 16, 2011. Purpose was to put
   pressure on the petitioners to withdraw their cases against Anil Samania
   and P. Mahalingam. While exerting the pressure, one police official had
   even slapped both the petitioners, though they were not beaten up so
   badly as asserted by the petitioners. It also demonstrates that the purpose
   of visiting the house of the petitioners was only to force them to withdraw
 D the cases and the version of the respondents that they wanted the
   petitioners to remove their car as it was blocking the road/passage has
   turned out to be a false story. Findings further reveal that these policemen
   came again though they may not be 20-25 in number as alleged by the
   petitioners. Fact remains that policemen came in one police jeep. They
 E may not have climbed up the roof of the petitioners house. However,
   one of the policemen entered in the campus by crossing over the boundary
   wall and he opened the main iron gate through which other police
   personnel could enter into the premises. It is also established that these
   policemen took the petitioners to police station though it was not by
    dragging them from inside their house to the police jeep. We also proceed
 F on the basis that in the police station, the petitioners were not slapped or
    maltreated and they had written apology letter without coercion.
          I8. When the entire incident is looked holistically, eschewing the
   exaggerated version thereof as projected by the petitioners, what emerges
   on record is that the police officers had come to the residence of the
 G petitioners; they had pressurised the petitioners to withdraw the cases;
   and while doing so, one policeman had even slapped both the petitioners.
   Using of pepper spray by petitioner No. 1 at the policeman has to be
   taken in the light of what had happened on the spot and also in the past,
   particularly on May 28, 2009 when the police officers had badly thrashed
 H
       MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                             567
                    [A.K. SIKRI, J.]          .,

 and beaten up the petitioners. A female person would naturally, in these A
·circumstances, feel threatened that it may not tum into a repeat of what
 had happened on May 28, 2009. !funder these circumstances, she tried
 to defend herself by warding off the policeman with the use of pepper
 spray, it cannot be said that she crossed the boundaries of self-defence.
 After all, matter has to be examined keeping in view the conduct of the B
 police which provoked her to react in the aforesaid manner.
         19. We also feel disturbed by another conduct of the respondents.
 With regard to the incident of May 28, 2009, when this Court ordered
 departmental inquiry against the erring officials, the Disciplinary Authority
 dealt with the matter in a lukewarm fashion by sparing those officials -c
 with a warning only. It seems that too was done just to complete the
 formalities as there was a direction by this Court_ for taking an action
 against them but for that, we are afraid, no action would have been
 taken by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, atrocity committed by the
  police on the hapless citizens is brushed aside lightly. In contrast, incident
 ofspraying pepper by a lady, faced with the situation when police officers D
  had come to their premises and were threatening them to withdraw the
  cases coupled with slap given to her as well as her brother, is taken so
 seriously that not only FIR is lodged but chargesheet is also filed within
  ten days. Likewise, insofar as act of writing apology is concerned, maybe
  it was not extracted by putting any pressure. However, the very fact
  that the petitioners were taken to the police station and were in an E
  atmosphere of fear that surround~d there, when this letter was written
  is sufficient to hold that it was not a voluntary act of the petitioners. No
"'credence can be given to such a letter. Both the petitioners are Doctors
  by profession. We feel that entire attempt is to put a pressure of another
  kind, once the police have found that their threats to the petitioners to F
  withdraw the cases against Anil Samania and P. Mahalingam have not
  proved successfully.
         20. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are inclined to accept the
  prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition so far as it relates to quashing
  the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 609 of2011 dated December 20, G
 ·2011 and the chargesheet No. 953 of201 l dated January 2, 2012 filed
  pursuant thereto. It ordered accordingly.
        21. Since, version of the petitioners in respect of incident of
 December 20, 2011 is found to be exaggerated, we do not deem it proper
 to direct respondent No. I to suspend respondent Nos. 2 and 3.         H
568                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A            22. We also direct respondent No. 1 to provide an adequate
      protection to the petitioners after assessing the situation and to ensure
      that petitioners are not harassed or threatened by the police officials in
      any manner.
          23. Before we part with, we are constrained to make certain
 B comments about the manner in which police has acted in this case by
   siding with one of the parties and, in the process, harassing the petitioners
   by its coercive behaviour. This Court has, time and again, denounced
   police brutalities which occur in various forms and the most significant
   judgments in this behalf are:
 c            (i)     Ni/abati Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors. 1
              (ii)    Ruda/ Shah v. State of Bihar2
              (iii)   Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 3
              (iv) D.K. Basu v. State of West Benga/4
 D            (v) Anita Thakur & Ors. v. Government of Jammu &
                  Kashmir & Ors. 5
           24. Police needs to be sensitised about the rights of citizens and
   the civilised manner in which police is required to maintain law and order
   in this country. From time to time, various suggestions have been given
 E by National Crime Records Bureau, National Police Commission as well
   as certain NGOs like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International,
   Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, etc. to bring in reforms in terms
   of amendments in Indian Police Act, appointing commissions to deal
   with cases of police brutalities, etc. Not that efforts are lacking in bringing
 F police reform. But we have yet to see the humane face of the police.
   Police officials falling in this category are far and few. It is high time
   that training of police in this direction is given a concrete shape so that it
    brings about positive results, and the \!sage of force on citizens is reduced
    and police officials become more sensitive towards them and fulfill their
    role as the protector of citizens. We understand that the Indira Gandhi
 G
       1 (1993) 2 sec 746
       2 (1983) 4 sec 141
       1 (1994) 4 sec 260

       '(1997) 1 SCC4l6
       'c2016) 15 sec 525
 H
          MONICA KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                               569
                       [A.K. SIKRI, J.]

National Open University (IGNOU) has signed a memorandum of A
understanding (MoU) with the National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC) to develop a new online advance programme on human rights
for the police personnel. It is also intended to update the contents of the
basic trainers' programme for police personnel. We hope that IGNOU
with NHRC would be able to develop requisite programme of high quality B
which would be able to sensitise the police personnel. We also hope that
the training under this programme shall be administered to the stake
holders in &reat measures. In this context, there is also a need to deal
with erring police officials by taking stern measures whose actions amount
 to 'misconduct' or may even be 'criminal' in nature. Letting these erring
 officials lightly, as has been done in the instant case, by only administering C
 a warning may not be appropriate. We hope that desired attention shall
 be given at the right quarters from the perspective of human rights of
 innocent and hapless citizens, so that following words of Thomas
 Bernhard's become a reality:
          "The anger and brutality against everything can readily from one D
          hour to the next, be transformed into its opposite."
          25. This writ petition stands disposed of.


Ankit Gyan                                             Writ Petition disposed ~f.




      .   .