DR. RINI JOHAR & Anr. v. STATE OF M.P & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated
Provisions considered
- Information Technology Act, 2000 s. 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 6, 41, 41(1), 41(2), 420, 482
- Constitution of India arts. 21, 32
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 41, 41A, 420
- A(b) of the Act s. 66
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ss. 13(1)(d), 13(2)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Judgment
2.4 In the present case, there has been violation of Article 21 and the petitioners were compelled to face humiliation. They have been treated with an attitude of insensibility. Not only there are violation of guidelines issued in the case of * D.K. Basu, there are also flagrant violation of mandate of law enshrined under Section 41 and Section 41-A of CrPC. The investigating officers in nc circumstances can flout the law with brazen proclivity. In such a situation, the public law remedy comes into play. The constitutional courts taking note of suffering and humiliation are entitled to grant compensation. That has been regarded as a redeeming feature. (Para 27)(597-B-D)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 6, 41, 41(1), 41(2), 420, 482; Constitution of India — arts. 21, 32; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 41, 41A, 420; A(b) of the Act — s. 66; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — ss. 13(1)(d), 13(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.