CAV Judgment

Bhargav D. Karia, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.J. Yagnik for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat for respondent nos. 1 and 2, learned advocate Mr. Chintan K. Gandhi for respondent no.3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent State.

2. This application is filed to initiate the proceedings of contempt under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (For short "the Act of 1971") against the respondents for alleged conscious, willful and repeated defiance of order dated 18.12.1996 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 416 whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued directions to the police/investigating officer to keep in mind and follow up the requirements both before and after a person is arrested.

3. The applicant initially preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.12780/2020 which was disposed of by order dated 08.07.2021 with a liberty to the applicant to move an application alleging civil contempt.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the present applicant is a farmer based in Devbhumi Dwarka and President of Farmers Wing of Gujarat Congress Pradesh Samiti representing Indian National Congress.

5. It is the case of the applicant that pursuant to an FIR against the applicant, the applicant was called to the Pradyumnanagar Police Station, on 20.05.2020, in order to be released on bail. After the applicant was granted bail from the Pradyumnanagar Police Station, while returning, he was called back for giving Thumb Impression and after the applicant went back to the very Police Station, he was taken to office of the Police Commissioner, Rajkot City by police personnel. It is further the case of the applicant that, in the premises of the office of Police Commissioner, Rajkot City, the applicant was held against his wish against a tree by two Police officers being, the Respondent No.1 Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Respondent no.2 Police Inspector who, brutally thrashed the applicant due to which the applicant received substantial blows on the buttocks and other lower parts of the body. It is the case of the applicant that, there was no reason for Respondent-Police to beat the applicant in the premises of the office of the Commissioner of Police that too while the applicant was in the custody of respondent-police.

6. It is the case of the applicant, that thereafter, on 21.05.2020 at about 10 A.M., different cases were registered against the applicant under Section 107 and Section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thereafter, on the same day, the applicant was produced before the Executive Magistrate and the Magistrate had directed the Police to take the applicant to the Rajkot Civil Hospital for treatment. It is also the case of the applicant that the applicant had moved an application intimating the Magistrate that he had been beaten/tortured while in custody but no action was taken by the Executive Magistrate against the said application.

7. Thereafter, the Doctor at the Civil hospital, Rajkot suggested the applicant to get admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient for receiving treatment. However, as the applicant wanted to get treated at a private hospital he was once again taken to the office of the Executive Magistrate (Mamlatdaar) by the police for obtaining permission regarding the same. It is the case of the applicant that again this time he had moved a written application before the Magistrate alleging torture at the hands of the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 while he was in custody. However, neither any order was passed by the Magistrate on the said application nor any action was taken by the Magistrate and the Magistrate permitted the applicant to take treatment from one Madhuram Hospital.

8. It is the case of the applicant that on 24.05.2020, the applicant along with few other people approached the Pradyumnagar Police Station with a written complaint against the Respondent nos. 1 & 2 alleging the commission of cognizable offences. However, the Respondent No. 3 refused to register an FIR in furtherance to the complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offences. Thereafter the applicant approached the office of the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot District with the same complaint alleging torture against the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, however, neither did he receive any reply from the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot District against his complaint, nor the FIR was registered in furtherance of the complaint.

9. It is the case of the applicant that thereafter, he approached the office of the Director General of Police, Gandhinagar, State of Gujarat and a letter was addressed to the office of the Director General of Police, State of Gujarat in this regard stating that they would visit the DGP's office on 8.6.2020. However, on the said date the police personnel from Sector 21, Gandhinagar, detained the applicant under Sections 68 and 69 of the Gujarat Police Act. It is also the case of the applicant that he was made to sit in the office of Director General of Police, Gandhinagar, State of Gujarat till 7.30 PM, and then released.

10. It is the case of the applicant that despite repeated applications, request, letters, complaints etc., the respondent Police has failed to take any action in pursuance to the complaints addressed by the applicant to both the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot District and the Respondent No.3 herein. Further, no investigation had been initiated in this regard and except that the statement of the applicant came to be recorded by the concerned Police officer somewhere around in July 2020. However, subsequent to recording of the said statement, no further action had been taken in this regard and the Respondent officers have failed to register an FIR despite the allegations of commission of cognisable offences by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 who have clearly violated the requirements laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of D.K. Basu (supra) for custodial violence and torture.

11. It is the case of the applicant that due to total non-action on part of the respondent-police authorities, the applicant approached this Court by way of preferring Special Criminal Application No. 3177/2020 and vide order dated 4.8.2020 this Court granted liberty to move an application under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Thereafter, the applicant moved Criminal Misc. Application No. 12780/2020 and vide order dated 8.7.2021, this Court granted the applicant, liberty to move the present application for Civil Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

12. This Court issued notice dated 02.09.2021 and thereafter the matter proceeded from time to time. On 08.02.2022, it was reported by learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin that Commissioner of Police would take appropriate steps pursuant to the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. It appears that various dates were given by this Court to place on record the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Rajkot city which was ultimately placed on record on 23.10.2023. Thereafter the matter was proceeded on merits.

13. Learned advocate Mr. Yagnik submitted that decision of the police in not registering the complaint despite allegations disclosing commission of cognizable offences is unlawful and bad in law inasmuch as no investigation was conducted in furtherance to the serious allegations as alleged in the complaint, nor any statement of the applicant was recorded for a long time and the statement was recorded only in the month of July, 2020.

14. It was submitted that the allegations of custodial torture are serious in nature in view of doctrine of parens patriae i.e. the duty to protect those who are under one's protection. It was submitted that the applicant was under the protection of respondent no.3 police station and on their watch, the applicant was taken to the office of Police Commissioner, Rajkot City and thrashed in the most horrific manner. It was therefore, submitted that considering the commission of offence of custodial torture by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in violation of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of D.K. Basu (supra), as per paragraph nos. 35 and 36 of the said decision, the respondents are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Act of 1971.

15. The applicant has filed additional affidavit placing on record the following facts:

          1) During the pendency of this proceeding, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12.02.2025, investigation into FIR against the police officer and personnel is concluded and "A" Summary has been submitted. It was submitted that "A" Summary report is placed on record in order to apprise the Court as the said summary is also produced before the learned JMFC, Rajkot.

          2) It was pointed out that by order of the Division Bench dated 17.09.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.12780/2020, the Police Commissioner of Rajkot City was directed to entrust inquiry/investigation into the application/complaint of the applicant about police atrocity in the custody by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajkot.

          3) The first interim report dated 29.09.2020 was submitted by the then Investigating Officer Mr. Manoharsinh N. Jadeja, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2 Rajkot city, stating that prima facie the incident of custodial violence as complained, has not taken place and thereafter final report dated 07.02.2022 by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Rajkot City Mr. Manoharsinh N. Jadeja was submitted by the office of Police Commissioner, Rajkot through office of the learned Public Prosecutor stating that medical history and medical certificate submitted by the doctors support the allegations of custodial atrocity against the applicant. It was pointed out that thereafter further report dated 15.01.2023 was placed before the Court by an affidavit dated 07.08.2023 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Rajkot city Mr. Sudhirkumar Desai through the learned Public Prosecutor disclosing that the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City by an order dated 20.02.2022 directed registration of an FIR against the erring police officers and personnel for police atrocity based on final report dated 07.02.2022.

          4) It was submitted that FIR dated 13.01.2023 was registered at Pradhyuman Nagar Police station of Rajkot City for the offences punishable under sections 342, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent nos. 1 and 2 and two unknown police personnel of Rajkot city.

          5) On 24.07.2023, further report was forwarded to office of the learned Public Prosecutor by the Investigating Officer Mr. Bhargav Pandya, Assistant Commissioner of Police wherein it was reported that investigation is going on and except taking statements of accused police officers, no further progress has taken place.

          6) Thereafter by order dated 12.12.2025, this Court directed the status report on the investigation on the FIR and identification of the remaining two accused in the backdrop of report dated 24.07.2023.

          7) Thereafter the Investigating Officer Ms. Radhika Bharai, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Western Zone, Rajkot City submitted "A" Summary report dated 26.03.2025 observing that sufficient evidence against the accused is not available and therefore, "A" Summary report is submitted which means that offence has been committed but the offenders are unknown.

16. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Yagnik has referred to and relied upon the following decisions for custodial violence and atrocities:

          1) Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and others reported in (1978) 4 Supreme Court Cases 494.

          2) Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration reported in (1980) 3 Supreme Court Cases 526.

          3) Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and others reported in (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 608.

          4) Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar and another reported in (1983) 4 Supreme Court Case 141.

          5) Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and others reported in (1983) 1 Supreme Court Cases 124.

          6) Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India reported in (1984) 3 Supreme Court Cases 82.

          7) Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J & K and others reported in (1985) 4 Supreme Court Cases 677.

          8) Balram Singh v. Bhikam Chand Jain and others reported in (1985) 4 Supreme Court Cases 246.

          9) Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and another reported in (1989) 1 Supreme Court Cases 494.

          10) Sunil Gupta and others v. State of Madhya Supreme Court Cases 119.

          11) State of Maharashtra and others v. Supreme Court Cases 373.

          12) Nilabati Behera (Smt) Alias Lalita Behera (Through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) v. State of Orissa and others reported in (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 746.

          13) Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 565.

          14) Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 260.

          15) Citizens for Democracy through its President v. State of Assam and others reported in (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases

          16) D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. reported in (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 416.

          17) Lok Adhir Sangh v. State of Gujarat reported in 1998 (1) GLR 613.

          18) Bachiben Naranbha v. State of Gujarat reported in 2007 (3) GLR 1918.

          19) Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 263.

          20) Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhatisgarh and others reported in (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1.

          21) Balwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 801.

          22) Jahirmiya Rehamumiya Malek v. State of Gujarat [Judgment dated 19.10.2023 rendered in Misc. Civil Application (For Contempt) No.1067 of 2022].

          23) Ajay Raydhanbhai Kumbharwadiya (Boricha) v. State of Gujarat reported in 2023(3) GLH

          24) Somnath v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 338.

17. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 heavily relied upon the Statement of "A" Summary submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police before the JMFC against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and pointed out that there is no material against the said respondents for the alleged offences and there is no prima facie evidence on record shown by the applicant that the respondents are involved in any police atrocity upon the applicant.

18. It was submitted that the matter is pending before the learned JMFC for adjudication upon the complaint filed pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner of Police on the basis of final report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

19. It was submitted that in view of such facts emerging from the record, there is no prima facie case against the respondents so as to initiate proceedings of contempt under the provisions of Act of 1971 for alleged violation of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued in case of D.K. Basu (supra).

20. In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat referred to the following decisions:

          1) Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and others reported in (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 549.

          2) Abdul Hameed v. Government of India reported in 1999 SCC OnLine Ker 655.

          3) Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Supreme Court Cases 81.

          4) Smt. Arifa & Ors. v. Abhiman Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and others [Judgment dated July 14, 2025 rendered in Special Leave Petition (C) @ Diary No.14976 of 2024].

          5) Mrityunjoy Das and another v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and others reported in (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 739.

          6) Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others reported in Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another reported in (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 101.

          7) Mohmed Juned Shamsuddin Saiyed and others v. K.C. Kapoor, Principal Secretary and others [Judgment dated 30.10.2006 rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No. 164 of 2004 and other allied matters].

21. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondent State referred to the guidelines issued by the Superintendent of Police dated 20.07.2019 and submitted that in view of such guidelines, the applicant was called by the CID Crime Branch and there is no evidence even from the CCTV footages which were shown to learned advocate for the applicant so as to find out whether the applicant was having any injury on his body after he was brought back from the office of CID Crime.

22. Learned AGP Mr. Jayswal also referred to the function and working of CID Crime Branch to show that the respondents have not committed any police atrocity as alleged by the applicant, more particularly, when the FIR is filed against respondent nos. 1 and 2 and other two unknown persons as per the order passed by the Commissioner of Police on the basis of the allegations made by the applicant. It was therefore, submitted that the provisions of section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 read with the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of D.K. Basu(supra), would not be attracted in facts of the case.

23. Learned advocate Mr. Chintan Gandhi for respondent no.3 submitted that no allegations are made against respondent no.3 and he has been falsely named by the applicant and therefore, no proceedings under the provisions of Act of 1971 can be initiated against respondent no.3.

24. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it appears that as per the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and as per the medical report obtained by him after a considerable period of time from the private nursing home at Madhuram Hospital has come to the conclusion that there were injuries upon the body of the applicant before 1 to 4 days of the date of incident and it was advised to initiate legal proceedings in the matter. However it is also emerging from the record that on the basis of said report dated 07.02.2022 which is placed on record by the applicant with additional affidavit, FIR is registered against respondent nos. 1 and 2 and other two unknown police persons in which "A" Summary report is filed and the applicant can take appropriate action in accordance with law in the said matter.

25. On perusal of the application as well as voluminous documents placed on record by the applicant, the applicant has not been able to show any prima facie case against the respondents for the alleged violation of the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 35 and 36 of the decision in case of D.K. Basu (supra) which reads as under:

          "35. We therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures :

          (1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name togs with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.

          (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest a such memo shall be attested by atleast one witness. who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.

          (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.

          (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.

          (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon he is put under arrest or is detained.

          (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of he next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest an the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is.

          (7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.

          (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the concerned Stare or Union Territory. Director, Health Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and Districts as well.

           (9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the illaga Magistrate for his record.

          (10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.

          (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and state headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.

          36. Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the concerned official liable for departmental action, also render his liable to be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in any High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. "

26. On perusal of the above directions and considering the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that none of the directions are violated to initiate the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents.

27. The application is therefore, not entertained with a liberty to the applicant to raise the contentions in the pending proceedings before the learned JMFC to contest the matter on merits as no ingredients of provisions of section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 read with directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of D.K. Basu (supra) prima facie, are attracted so as to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents.

28. In view of absence of factual foundation for invoking the ingredients of contempt against the respondents, case laws cited at bar is not dealt with in detail as the same would not be applicable in the facts of the case.

29. Application is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.