RAJINDER SINGH PATHANIA & ORS.versusSTATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.

                            [2011] 10 S.C.R. 260


    A              RAJINDER SINGH PATHANIA & ORS.
                                     v.
                   STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 1582 of 2011)
                             AUGUST 12, 2011.
    B
            [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

              Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 1071151
        - Proceedings under - Against respondent no. 3 and 4 since
    C   police constables while patrolling found them quarrelling with
        each other in intoxicated condition at public place -
        Respondents produced before Magistrate and since they·
        could not furnish bail bonds, were sent to judicial custody -
1
        Bondsfumished the next day and respondents were released
    o   - Writ petition by respondents seeking quashing of
        proceedings ulss. 1071151 and to initiate proceedings against.
        the said constables for illegal detention - High Court quashed .
        the criminal case against respondent nos. 3 and 4 and
        directed Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate
    E   the case against the constables and awarded a compensation
        of Rs. 25, 0001- each to the respondents for wrongful
        confinement - On appeal, held: On facts, it was not a fit case
        where investigation could be handed over to the CBI - It was
        not a case where State authorities were interested or involved
    F   in the incident - An arrest uls. 151 can be supported when
        the person to be arrested designs to commit a cognizable
        offence - Jurisdiction vested in a Magistrate to act u/s. 107
        is to be exercised in emergent situation - Proceedings ulss.
         1071151 were initiated four years ago and the High Court
        quashed the proceedings - At such a belated stage
    G   correctness of the decision to that extent does not require
        consideration - Even otherwise the said issue remains purely
        academic - As regards the issue of compensation, the High
        Cowt erred in awarding even token compensation to the tune

    H                                260
 RAJINDER SINGH PATHANIA & ORS. v. STATE OF                261
            N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.
of Rs.25,0001- each as the High Court did not hold any            A
enquiry and passed the. order merely after considering the
status report submitted by the State without hearing any of the
persons against whom a/legations of abuse of power had
been made - Impugned judgment is set aside except to the
extent that the proceedings u/ss. 1071151 against the             B
respondents stood quashed - Investigation.

      Appellant nos. 2 to 4-Constables while patrolling
found respondent nos.3 and 4 fighting with each other
in an intoxicated condition. They were booked under
Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973          C
and were produced before the Special Executive
Magistrate The respondents could not furnish the bonds
and thus, the Magistrate sent them to judicial custody.
The said respondents furnished the bond of Rs.15,000/-
each on the next day, and were released. Thereafter, the          D
respondents filed a writ petition for quashing of the
proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. and to
initiate criminal proceedings against appellant nos.2 to 4
and award them compensation for illegal detention. The
High Court quashed the criminal case registered against           E
respondent nos. 3 and 4 and directed the Central Bureau
of Investigation to investigate the case against appellant
nos. 2 to 4; and awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/-
each to the said respondents for wrongful confinement.
Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals.              F

     Allowing the appeals, the Court
    HELD: 1.1 In the writ petition, altogether there were ,
seven respondents, Including the appellants and the
Magistrate who had passed the order under Sections 107/ G
151 Cr.P.C. The counsel for the State accepted notice on
behalf of all the seven respondents. Most. of the
respondents before the writ court had been impleaded
by name in personal capacity making allegations o_f
exceeding their powers anct abusing their positions. H
   262      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A There is nothing on record to show that the standing
  , counsel had any communication with persons against
    whom allegations of mala fide had been alleged,
    particularly, appellant nos. 2 to 4 and the Magistrate. Thus,
    none of them had an opportunity of appearing before the
8 High Court. The submission that as the State had been
    representing all of them, there was no need to hear each
    and every individual cannot be accepted. The impugned
    judgment and order in these appeals was passed in
    flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. [Para
C 7] [269-C-G]
       1.2 No further investigation or inquiry had been
  conducted on the charge of abusing, threatening and
  quarrelling by the writ petitioners with each other. Though
  the High Court reached the conclusion that the said
D respondents had been kept behind the bar for one day
  resulting into violation of their fundamental rights, without
  realising that since they failed to furnish bonds, no other
  option was available and they were sent to judicial
  custody in view of the order of the Magistrate. If the writ
E petitioners were aggrieved of the same, they could have
  challenged the same by filing appeal/revision. It cannot
  be understood under what circumstances the writ
  petition was entertained for examining the issue of illegal
  detention, particularly, in a case where there was a
F justification for keeping them in judicial custody. [Para 9)
  [270-G-H; 271-A·B]
       1.3 In the instant case, the grievance of the writ ·
  petitioners basically had been against the two
  Constables and one Head Constable. It was not a case
G where it could be held that the State authorities were
  interested or involved in the incident. Thus, it was not a
  fit case where investigation could be handed over to the
  CBI. It is not only in the instant case that the High Court
  has directed CBI to investigate but it is evident from the
H other connected cases heard along with these appeals
 RAJINDER SINQH PATHANIA & ORS. v. STATE OF             263
            N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.
and disposed of by separate order, the same Hon'ble            A
Judge directed CBI enquiry in another paltry case under
Sections 107/151 Cr.P .C. Thus, it is evident that the High
Court has been passing such directions in a most casual
and cavalier manner considering that each and every
investigation must be carried out by some special              8
investigating agency. [Paras 12 and 13) [271-E-H; 272-A-
D]
    Dish a v. State of Gujarat and Ors. JT (2011) 7 SC 548;
Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan and Ors. JT (2011) 3 SC
50; Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat JT (2011) 4 SC 279 -       C
referred to.

      1.4 The object of the Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. are of
preventive justice and not punitive. Section 151 should
only be invoked when there is imminent danger to peace o
or likelihood of breach of peace under Section 107 Cr.P.C.
An arrest under Section 151 can be supported when the
person to be arrested designs to commit a cognizable
offence. If a proceeding under Sections 107/151 appears
to be abs-olutely necessary to deal with the threatened E
apprehension of breach of peace, it is incumbent upon
the authority concerned to take prompt action. The
jurisdiction vested in a Magistrate to act under Section
107 is to be exercised in emergent situation. Therefore,
the Section 151, expressly lays down the requirements
                                                            F
for exercise of the power to arrest without an order from
a Magistrate and without warrant. If these conditions are
not fulfilled and, a person is arrested under Section 151
Cr.P.C., the arresting authority may be exposed to
proceedings under the law for violating the fundamental
rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. G
[Paras 14 and 15] [272-D-H; 273-A-B]

    Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatti v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
AIR 2005 SC 2115: 2005 (2) SCR 879; Joginder Kumar v.
State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 1349; D. K. Basu v. State   H
    264     SUPREME COURT REPORTS           (2011] 10 S.C.R.


,p.. of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610: 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR
    28 - referred to.

        1.5 In the instant case, the proceedings under
    Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated on 4.2.2007 and
    the High Court has quashed the proceedings. At such a
8   belated stage, correctness of the decision to that extent
    does not require consideration. Even otherwise the issue
    regarding quashing of those proceedings at this stage
    remains purely academic. [Para 16] (273-D]

C      1.6 As regards the issue of award of compensation
  in case of violation of fundamental rights of a person,
  though the High Courts and this Court in exercise of their
  jurisdictions under Articles 226 and 32 can award
  compensation for such violations but such a power
D should not be lightly exercised. These Articles cannot be
  used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and
  obligations which could be enforced efficaciously
  through the ordinary process of courts. Before awarding
  any compensation there must be a proper enquiry on the
E question of facts alleged in the complaint. The court may
  examine the report and determine the issue after giving
  opportunity of filing objections to rebut the same and
  hearing to the other side. Awarding of compensation is
  permissible in case the court reaches the same
F conclusion on a re-appreciation of the evidence adduced
  at the enquiry. Award of monetary compensation in such
  an eventuality is permissible "when that is the only
   practicable mode of redress available for the
  contravention made by the State or its servants in the
   purported exercise of their powers." (Para 17] (273-E-H;
G 274-A]

      Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC
  1026:1984 (3) SCR 544 ; Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J&K
  and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 494: 1985 (4) SCC 677; Smt. Nilabati
H Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors. AIR 1993 SC 1960:1993
 RAJINDER SINGH PATHANIA & ORS. v. STATE OF 265
            N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.
(2) SCR 581; D.K. Basu v. State of WB. AIR 1997 SC 610:     A
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284; Chairman, Railway Board and
Ors. v. Mrs. Chandrima Das and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 988: 2000
(1) SCR 480; S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana and Ors.
(2005) 10 SCC 1; Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.
AIR 2006 SC 1117: 2006 (2) SCR 67; Munshi Singh Gautam      B
(D) and Ors. v. State of M.P. AIR 2005 SC 402: 2004 (5)
Suppl. SCR 1092; Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan
Samadkhan Sindhi and Ors. AIR 2010 SC 475: 2009 (15)
SCR 662 - referred to.

    1.7 The High Court erred in awarding even token         C
compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- each as the High
Court did not hold any enquiry and passed the order
merely after considering the status report submitted by
the appellant no.1 without hearing any of the persons
against whom allegations of abuse of power had been         D
made. [Para 19] [275-A-B]

    1.8 The judgment and order impugned is set aside
except to the extent that the proceedings under Sections
107/151 Cr.P.C. against the contesting respondents stood    E
quashed. [Para 20] [275-B-C]
                    Case Law Reference:
  JT (2011) 7 SC 548           Referred to     Para 12
                                                            F
  JT (2011) 3 SC 50            Referred to     Para 12
  (2011) 4 SC 279              Referred to     Para 12
  2005 (2 ) SCR 879            Referred to     Para 15
  AIR 1994 SC 1349             Referred to     Para 15      G

  1994 (4) sec 260             Referred to     Para 15
  1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 28      Referred to     Para 15
  1984 (3) SCR 544             Referred to     Para 17
    266       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A     1985 (4) sec 677                Referred to       Para 17
      1993 (2) SCR 581                Referred to       Para 17
      1996 (10) Suppl .. SCR 284     Referred to        Para 17
      2000 (1) SCR 480                Referred to       Para 17
B
      (2005) 1o sec 1                 Referred to       Para 17
      2006 (2) SCR 67                 Referred to       Para 18
      2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 1092        Referred to       Para 18
c
      2009 (15) SCR 662               Referred to       Para 18
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1582 of 2011.

D       From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2008 of the
    High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (Criminal) No. 264 of
    2007.
                                  WITH
E Criminal Appeal Nos. 1583 of 2011.

       P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Pradeep Gupta, K.K. Mohan, Parinav
  Gupta, P.K. Dey, Sadhna Sandhu, MPS Tomar, Anil Katiyar,
  D.S. Mahra, Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Anil Kumar Sangal, D.P.
  Mohanty, A.P. Mohanty and C. Balakrishna for the appearing
F parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Leave granted in both the
    matters.
G
      2. These appeals have been preferred against the same
  judgment and order dated 25.2.2008 passed by the High Court
  of Delhi in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.264 of 2007 by which the High
  Court has quashed the criminal case registered against
H respondent nos. 3 and 4; directed Central Bureau of
 RAJINDER SINGH PATHANIA & ORS. v. STATE OF                   267
 N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Investigation (hereinafter called 'CBI') to investigate the case      A
in respect of the allegations made by the said respondents
against the appellant nos. 2 to 4; and awarded a compensation
of Rs.25,000/- each to the said respondents for wrongful
confinement.

     3. FACTS:
                                                                      8

     A. On 3.2.2007, Constable Virender Kumar, Head
Constable Krishan Singh and Constable Jai Kumar, appellant
nos. 2 to 4 respectively while patrolling in the area found that
Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Dalip Gupta, respondent nos.3 and             C
4 respectively were fighting with each other in an intoxicated
condition. The said appellants tried to pacify them but in vein.
After realising that they were in drunken condition the aforesaid
appellants took both the said respondents to the hospital for
medical examination wherein they misbehaved with the Doctor           o
and other staff of the hospital.. After medical examination, it was
opined that both the said respondents had taken alcohol.

     B. The said respondents were booked under Sections
107/151 of the Code of Criminal,Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter E
called 'Cr.P.C.') and were produced before the Special
Executive Magistrate (hereinafter called 'the Magistrate') on
4.2.2007. The Magistrate issued show cause notice as to why
they should not be ordered to execute personal bond of
Rs.5,000/- each with a surety in the like amount for maintaining
peace for a period of one year. The said respondents could . F
not furnish the bonds and thus, the Magistrate sent both of them
to judicial custody. The said respondents furnished the bond
of Rs.15,000/- each on the next day, i.e., 5.2.2007 and were
released.
                                                                      G
     C. The said respondents filed Criminal Writ Petition
No.264 of 2007 on 19.2.2007 before the High Court of Delhi
praying mainly for quashing of the proceedings under Sections
107/151 Cr.P.C. and further asked to initiate criminal
proceedings against the appellant nos.2 to 4 and award them           H
    268      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A compensation for illegal detention. The writ petition came for
  hearing on 26.2.2007. The standing counsel appearing for the
  State took notice on behalf of all the respor;idents in the writ
  petition. The High Court directed the police a~thorities to submit
  the status report. The appellant no.1 after making an inquiry in
8 the case submitted the status report on 10.7.2007. The petition
  was heard on 31.10.2007 and has been allowed vide judgment
  and order dated 25.2.2008. Hence, these appeals.

          4. Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General
    appearing for the State of NCT Delhi and Shri Pradeep Gupta,
C   learned counsel appearing for the appellants, have submitted
    that both the said respondents had been under the influence
    of liquor and were fighting with each other at a public place,
    thus, there was danger of breach of peace and tranquillity.
    Appellant nos.2 to 4 tried to pacify them but the said
D   respondents did not pay any heed. They had been booked
    under Sections 107/151 Cr.P .C. ·and produced before the
    Magistrate on the next day. The Magistrate after completing
    legal formalities directed that they may be released on
    furnishing the bonds to the tune of Rs.5,000/- each with a surety
E   in the like amount. The said respondents were not in a position
    to submit the bail bonds on the said date and thus, could not
    be released on 4.2.2007. However, on the next day, they
    submitted the bail bonds voluntarily for a sum of Rs.15,000/-
    each, and thus, they were released. Factual averments made
F   in the writ petition were totally false.

        Appellants had not been served personal notices and had
  no opportunity to defend themselves. The order impugned has
  been passed in flagrant violation of the principle of natural
  justice. Such a petty matter does not require to be investigated
G by the CBI. Token compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- has
  been awarded to each of the said respondents without
  determining the factual controversy. Hence, the appeals
  deserve to be allowed.

H         5. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the
 RAJINDER SINGH PATHANIA & ORS. v. STATE OF 269
 N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.].
respondent nos. 3 and 4 has opposed the appeals contending A
that the appellants had violated fundamental rights of the ·
contesting respondents and detained them in jail without any
justification, therefore, the matter is required to be investigated
by the CBI or some other independent investigating agency.
Token compensation has rightly been awarded by the High B
Court. The appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.

     6. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

      7. In the writ petition, admittedly, altogether there were C
seven respondents, including the present appellants and the
Magistrate who had passed the order under Sections 107/151
Cr.P.C. Record of the case reveals that the matter was listed
for the first time on 26.2.2007 and the learned standing counsel
for the State accepted notice on behalf of all the seven . D
respondents therein. Most of the respondents before the writ
court had been impleaded by name in personal capacity
making allegations of exceeding their powers and abusing their
positions. There is nothing on record to show that the standing
counsel had any communication with persons against whom E
allegations of mala fide had been alleged, particularly, appellant
nos. 2 to 4 and the learned Magistrate, respondent no.5 herein.
Thus, none of them had an opportunity of appearing before the
High Court. We do not find any force in the submission made
by learned counsel appearing for the original writ petitioners F
that as the State had been representing all of them, there was
no need to hear each and every individual. Undoubtedly, the
judgment and order impugned in these appeals has been
passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice
and, thus, liable to be set aside solely on this ground.
                                                                   G
      8. The status report had been submitted before the High
Court after having proper investigation, stating that the writ
petitioners had been under the influence of alcohol and been
abusing, threatening and quarrelling each other at the public
place. The police personnel could not control them. When they     H
     270       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A were taken to the hospital for medical check up they were found
  intoxicated, and they misbehaved with the doctor and staff of
  the hospital also. It had been brought to the notice of the High
  Court that Sanjeev Kumar - respondent no. 3, had been
  threatening the police officials that his cousin Shri Aushutosh
B Kumar was a Metropolitan Magistrate in Tis Hazari Courts,
  Delhi and he would teach them a lesson for ever. It was further
  pointed out that Shri Aushutosh Kumar, MM, Tis Hazari Courts,
  Delhi from his mobile No. 9868932336 had a talk with
  appellant no.1-Rajender Singh Pathania, SHO, PS Samaipur
c                                                         /
  Badli, at 10.00 P.M. on his mobile No. 9810030663 for more
  than three minutes on 3.2.2007. The Magistrate had passed
  the release order of the said respondents, however, they could
  not be released because they failed to furnish the personal bond
  with a surety in the like amount. The High Court while passing
D the order did not consider it proper to have an investigation on
  the material facts regarding demand of bribe to the tune of
  Rs.500 from the writ petitioners or regarding the mis-behaviour
  of the said respondents with the doctor and staff of the hospital.
  The medical report reveals that they were intoxicated. The
  relevant part of the medical report dated 3.2.2007 made at 8.00
E p.m. in Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Jahangirpuri,
  Delhi reads as under:

           "Smell of alcohol ++

'P         Patient had been irritating and misbehaving with the doctor
           and staff'

        9. No further investigation or inquiry had been conducted
  on the charge of abusing, threatening and quarrelling by the writ
  petitioners with each other. Though the High Court reached the
G conclusion that the said respondents had been kept behind the
  bar for one day resulting into violation of their fundamental rights,
  without realising that since they failed to furnish bonds, no other
  option was available and they were sent to judicial custody in
  view of the order of the Magistrate. If the writ petitioners were
H
  RAJINDER SINGH PATHANIA & ORS. v. STATE OF                   271
  N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
  aggrieved of the same, they could have challenged the same A
· by filing appeal/revision. We failed to understand under what
  circumstances the writ petition has been entertained for
  examining the issue of illegal detention, particularly, in a case
  where there was a justification for keeping them in judicial ./
  custody.                                                          B

      10. The High Court reached the conclusion that in spite of
the fact that the Magistrate passed the order to furnish the bonds
of Rs.5,000/- each, the bonds had been accepted for
Rs.15,000/-. There is nothing on record to show that any of writ      C
petitioners had raised the grievance before the Magistrate
enhancing the amount of personal bonds. In fact, the said writ
petitioners themselves voluntarily submitted bonds for
Rs.15,000/- and therefore, no illegality could be found on that
ground.
                                                                      D
     11. The judgment and order impugned herein shocked our
judicial conscience as under what circumstances such a petty
incident was considered by the High Court to be a fit case to
be referred to the CBI for investigation.
                                                                      E
      12. This very Bench recently in Disha v. State of Gujarat
& Ors., JT (2011) 7 SC 548, while relying upon earlier
judgments of this Court in Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan
& Ors., JT (2011) 3 SC 50; and Narmada Bai v. State of
Gujarat, JT (2011) 4 SC 279, came to the conclusion that for
                                                                      F
directing the CBI to hold the investigation the court must be
satisfied that the opposite parties are very powerful and
influential persons or the State authorities like top police
officials are involved and the investigation has not proceeded
with in proper dirc.ction or it has been biased. In such an
eventuality, in crjer. to do complete justice a direction to the      G
CBI to investigate th.e case can be issued.

     13. In the instant case, the grievance of the writ petitioners
basically had been against the two Constables and one Head
Constable. It was not a case wher~ it cculd be held that the          H
    272     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 10 S.C.R.

A   State authorities were interested or involved in the incident.
    Thus, in our opinion, it was not a fit case where investigation
    could be handed over to the CBI.

       It is not only in the instant case that the High Court has
  directed CBI to investigate but it is evident from the other
B connected cases which have been heard along with these
  appeals and are being disposed of by separate order, that on
  the same day i.e. 25.2.2008 the same Hon'ble Judge directed
  CBI enquiry in another paltry case under Sections 107/151
  Cr.P.C. Further on 28.2.2008 CBI enquiry was directed in
C another case also under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C .. Thus, it is
  evident that the High Court has been passing such directions
  in a most casual and cavalier manner considering that each and
  every investigation must be carried out by some special
  investigating agency.
D
        14. The object of the Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. are of
  preventive justice and not punitive. S.151 should only be
  invoked when there is imminent darger to peace or likelihood
  of breach of peace under Section 107 Cr.P.C. An arrest under
E S.151 can be supported when the person to be arrested
  designs to commit a cognizable offence. If a proceeding under
  Sections 107/151 appears to be absolutely necessary to deal
  with the threatened'apprehension of breach of peace, it is
  incumbent upon the authority concerned to take prompt action.
F The jurisdiction vested in a Magistrate to act under Section 107
  is to be exercised in emergent situation.

       15. A mere perusal of Section 151 of the Code of Criminal
  Procedure makes it clear that the conditions under which a
  police officer may arrest a person without an order from a
G Magistrate and without a warrant have been laid down in
  Section 151. He can do so only if he has come to know of a
  design of the person concerned to commit any cognizable
  offence. A further condition for the exercise of such power, which
  must also be fulfilled, is that the arrest should be made only if
H it appears to the police officer concerned that the commission
 RAJINDER SINGH PATHANIA & ORS. v. STATE OF                    273
 N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented. The Section,             A
therefore, expressly lays down the requirements for exercise of
the power to arrest without an order from a Magistrate and
without warrant. If these conditions are not fulfilled and, a person
is arrested under Section 151 Cr.P.C., the arresting authority
may be exposed to proceedings under the law for violating the          B
fundamental rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22 of Constitution.
(Vide: Ahmed Noorrnohmed Bhatti v. State of Gujarat and Ors.,
AIR 2005 SC 2115).

    (See also: Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR           C
1994 SC 1349, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997
SC 610).

     16. In the instant case the proceedings under Sections 107/
151 Cr.P.C. were initiated on 4.2.2007 and the High Court has
quashed the proceedings. At. such a belated stage,                     D
correctness of the decision to that extent does not require
consideration. Even otherwise the issue regarding quashing of
those proceedings at this stage remains purely academic. So,
we uphold the impugned judgment to that extent.
                                                                       E
     17. The issue of award of compensation in case of
violation of fundamental rights of a person has been considered
by this Court time and again and it has consistently been held
that though the High Courts and this Court in exercise of their
jurisdictions under Articles 226 and 32 can award
compensation for such violations but such a power should not
                                                                  F
be lightly exercised. These Articles cannot be used as a
substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which
could be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary process
of courts. Before awarding any compensation there must be a
proper enquiry on the question of facts alleged in the complaint. G
The court may examine the report and determine the issue after
giving opportunity of filing objections to rebut the same and
hearing to the other side. Awarding of compensation is
permissible in case the court reaches the same conclusion on .
a re-appreciation of the evidence adduced at the enquiry. H
          274       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2011) 10 S.C.R.
                                                         '
 A    Award of monetary compensation in such an eventuality is
      permissible "when that is the only practicable mode of redress
      available for the contravention made by the State or its servants
      in the purported exercise of their powers."

 B      (Vide: Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, AIR 1984
   SC 1026; Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J&K & Ors., AIR 1986
   SC 494; Smt. Ni/abati Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors., AIR
   1993 SC 1960; D.K. Basu v. State of WB., AIR 1997 SC 610;
   Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. Mrs. Chandrima Das &
 C Ors., AIR 2000 SC 988; and S.P.S. Rathore v. State of
   Haryana & Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 1).

          18. In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2006
      SC 1117, while dealing with similar issue this Court held' as
      under:
, D
                "In cases where custodial. death or custodial torture or other
                violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 is
                established, the courts may award compensation in a
                proceeding under Article 32 or 226. However, before
                awarding compensation, the Court will have to pose to
 E    I
                itself the following questions: (a) whether the violation of
                Article 21 is patent and incontrovertible, (b) whether the
                violation' is gross and of a magnitude to shock the
                conscience of the court, (c) whether the custodial torture
                alleged has resulted in death ..... Where there are clear
 F              indications that the allegations are false or exaggerated
                fully or in part, the courts may not award compensation as
                a public law remedy under Article 32 or 226, but relegate
                the aggrieved party to the traditional remedies by way of
                appropriate civil/criminal action."
 G
      (See also: Munshi Singh Gautam (D) & Ors. v. State of M.P.,
      AIR 2005 SC 402; and Bharat Amratlal Kothari v. Dosukhan
      Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 475).

                19. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion
 H
 RAJINDER SINGH PATHANIA & ORS. v. STATE OF                275
 N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
that the High Court erred in awarding even token compensation     A
to the tune of Rs.25,000/- each as the High Court did not hold
any enquiry and passed the order merely after considering the
status report submitted by the appellant no.1 without hearing
any of the persons against whom allegations of abuse of power
had been made. Such an order is liable to be set aside.           8
     20. In view of the above, appeals succeed and are allowed.
Judgment and order impugned herein is set''aside except to
the extent that the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C.
against the contesting respondents stood quashed.
                                                                  c
N.J.                                        Appeals allowed.