DR. RINI JOHAR & ANR. vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Harishri

College:- Sastra Deemed University

Editor- Malla Greeshma

Citation	AIR 2016 SC 2679
Court	Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment	3rd June 2016
Bench	Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh
Petitioner	Dr. Rini Johar
Respondent	State of Madhya Pradesh
Legal Provisions Involved	Section 34, 420 of IPC, Section 66D and 66A of IT Act (66A: later struck down), Section 41, 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure

INTRODUCTION:

The case of Rini Johar & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh is a crucial landmark case that has reinforced the protection of personal liberty of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. It focuses on the illegal arrest and inhuman treatment of two women by the Madhya Pradesh Police. It violated the procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court. The petitioners were arrested without notice, transported to another state without a warrant or judicial approval and charged under a provision that was struck down in the Information Technology Act. The Court quashed the proceedings and also provided compensation for the damage caused to their dignity.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

It all began with an online cheating case involving a Pune-based doctor and an alleged resident of Bhopal. The latter made an allegation against the petitioners that they had committed impersonation and dishonest inducement to transfer money through an online transaction. In this context, the Madhya Pradesh Police had filed an FIR under Sections 34 and 420 of the IPC and Sections 66D and 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, against the petitioners. The Madhya Pradesh Police proceeded to arrest the petitioners without following the prescribed exercise of giving any proper notice or summons under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

When they were arrested by the police, the petitioners were never informed about the reasons for their arrest. No arrest memo was prepared. Their friends or family were never informed about the arrest, nor were they produced before a local magistrate, as required by the Code.Making it worse, it was alleged that the police took the petitioners in an unreserved train compartment from Pune to Bhopal. It happened under extremely humiliating conditions regardless of their age, dignity or profession. The record of their arrest and custody was incomplete. No female constable accompanied them, and no medical examination was conducted. These actions directly violated multiple Supreme Court directions that were laid down for the lawful arrest and detention of women, especially.

When the matter was taken to the Supreme Court, the Madhya Pradesh Police initially tried to justify their actions. But upon an inquiry conducted, the State admitted the arrest and how it treated the petitioners. They also admitted that the petitioners were charged under Section 66A of the IT Act, which was repealed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). Thus, a simple complaint of cheating turned into a constitutional issue involving violation of fundamental rights, disregard for judicial procedure, and misuse of police power.

ISSUES RAISED:

1.      Whether the arrest and detention of the petitioners have infringed upon their personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and the procedures provided in the CrPC?

2.      Were the Madhya Pradesh police at fault for not issuing prior notice and not producing the accused before the magistrate as per the provisions of the CrPC?

3.      Whether prosecuting the petitioners under Section 66A of the IT Act was valid?

4.      Whether the actions of the petitioners were merely civil because of a lack of criminal intention, thus amounting to an abuse of the process of law?

5.      Whether the petitioners were entitled to any compensation for the violations of their rights, and to what extent public law remedies could be effectively employed to seek accountability from the state?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

The petitioners filed a writ petition and approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to ensure justice against gross violations of their fundamental rights. Pertinently, the petitioners' contentions are as below:

1.      The arrest was arbitrary and therefore unlawful: The petitioners claimed that the arrest by the Madhya Pradesh police was a prima facie violation of Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They were neither provided with a proper notice nor allowed to appear on their own accord, which is mandatory for cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.

2.      Absence of a transit remand or judicial involvement: It was argued that the police failed to produce the petitioners before a local magistrate in Pune before the arrest. Under Indian criminal law, it is necessary to do so before transferring an arrested person to another state. This amounts to unlawful detention and violates their rights under Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

3.      Degrading treatment to the petitioners: The petitioners were taken in an unreserved general compartment without a female officer present in the said compartment on this occasion. There were no official records made of the same. No medical examination was conducted, and they were deprived of any basic facilities. They called such treatment a direct infringement of human rights and violative of their dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

4.      Continued Prosecution: The petitioners were charged under the IT Act, 2000, with Section 66A. This section has already been struck down by the Supreme Court, being declared unconstitutional in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). It was contended in the present case that prosecuting them under a repealed provision violated the rule of law and their fundamental rights.

5.      The dispute is civil and not criminal: The petitioners contended that the allegations forming the basis of the present case were purely civil. The allegations of cheating under the IPC arose out of a commercial, contractual transaction. The absence of fraud or malice negated criminal liability. Thus, the proceedings were giving way to abuse of the process of law.

6.      Entitlement to Compensation: The petitioners claim that the incident has caused them mental trauma, loss of dignity, physical discomfort, and procedural violations. The petitioners claim that as a remedy for the violation of their rights and the disgrace caused, they are entitled to monetary compensation.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

Madhya Pradesh and the police authorities responded to the writ by making the following assertions:

1.      Arrest by Valid FIR: The State of Madhya Pradesh argued that the arrest of the petitioners was made after making a valid First Information Report according to the procedure defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. All actions were legitimate according to the law. No one would deny that the petitioners are involved in cheating and impersonation.

2.      Denial of Mistreatment: They denied the allegations made by the petitioners concerning inhuman treatment, non-compliance with CrPC provisions, and procedural lapses. The petitioners had not been subjected to any degrading treatment, and none of their rights were harmed at any time during the entire process of investigation, arrest, or transit.

3.      Non-Issuance of Notice: The respondent stated that, as a very serious case, it was a matter of necessity on the part of the police to arrest the petitioners to prevent evasion and non-cooperation. So, there was no necessity to issue a notice.

4.      No Malicious Intent: The respondents argued that no personal problems existed between the authority and the petitioners, and thus, there was no malicious intent to create embarrassment for them. The arrest became a necessary part of the investigation.

5.      Prosecution under Section 66A was therefore valid: The respondents contended that a FIR has to be registered with charges under Section 66D of the IT Act; irrespective thereof, prosecution was valid, while the charges under Section 66A were not wholly void.

FINAL JUDGMENT:

The Supreme Court examined the facts, records of procedure, and the conduct of the police authorities. The Court decided in favour of the petitioners, observing an infringement of their fundamental rights in the arrest and transit of the petitioners.

The following are the key observations made by the Court:

·         Violation of Fundamental Rights: The arrest and detention of the petitioners were held to be a violation of the fundamental right to life with dignity under Article 21. The proceedings were held to be arbitrary and inhuman.

·         Non-compliance with the law: The Court was of the view that the police authorities deliberately ignored the safeguards provided under Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

·         Continuing Prosecution: The Court condemned the retrospective application of the provision that stood struck down by a landmark judgment. Filing a FIR under this section and continuing the prosecution has disregarded the law.

·         Civil Dispute Considered a Crime: The Supreme Court pointed out that the allegations made under the IPC were failing to meet the essential requirements of a crime, such as mens rea, fraudulent intention. This case is strictly civil in nature. Therefore, the continuation of this case as a criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of law.

·         Compensation to the Petitioners: The Supreme Court directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to compensate each petitioner with Rs. 5,00,000 for the humiliation suffered and rights violated.

CONCLUSION:

Lastly, the Court has laid down the following legal principles:

1.      Procedural law is a necessity to protect liberty, not just a formality.

2.      If a section has been repealed, it is unconstitutional and therefore cannot be used retrospectively.

3.      The right to life of an individual is non-negotiable, even in the case of arrestees.

4.      The state is accountable when public officers violate the rights of the citizens.

And thus, the judgment went in favour of the petitioners.

REFERENCES:

·         Dr. Rini Johar & Anr. vs State Of M.P.&Ors.; on 3 June, 2016

·         Dr. Rini Johar & Another v. State of M.P. & Ors. AIR 2016 SC 2679/(2016) 11 SCC 703/MANU/SC/0667/2016 – Digest of case laws