DEEPAK KUMAR KUNDU v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & Ors.

8. SMT. DESAMMAL W/O YETHIRAJAN NO.165, 1ST MAIN BASAVANAGAR HAL, BENGALURU-560 037.

9. K M KASTHURI D/O SHEKHAR NO.29 KASTURI NILAYAM 2ND CROSS 'C' SECTOR RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY BASAVANAGAR HAL, BENGALURU-37

10. ALLIANCE LAW ASSOCIATES NO.24 KOTA COMPLEX 3RD FLOOR ABOVE R K PHOTO STUDIO BESIDE BMC, BANGALORE-560 004. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:98 WP No. 3593 of 2022 HC-KAR BRANCH-124, 3RD FLOOR HENNUR MAIN ROAD KARCHARKANAHALLI BUS STOP ST THOMAS TOWN POST KARCHARKANAHALLI BANGALORE-560 084.

11. ADVOCATE YAHATHESHAM REPRESENTING ALLIANCE LAW ASSOCIATES ADDRESS AS ABOVE

12. ADVOCATE ALI AHMED REPRESENTING ALLIANCE LAW ASSOCIATES ADDRESS AS ABOVE

13. THE POLICE PERSONNEL OF BYAPPANAHALLI PS BYAPPANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO TAKE SUO MOTU COGNIZANCE OF THE MATTER AGAINST ALL THE RESPONDENTS R1 THROUGH R5 AND ACCUSED A1 THROUGH A8 AS ENSHRINED IN ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND AWARD PUNISHMENT AGAINST THE CHARGES AS FOLLOWS -RESPONDENTS R1, R2 - LIABLE TO PAY THE DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:98 WP No. 3593 of 2022 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER Petitioner/party-in-person is before this Court seeking following reliefs: ''1. Take Suo-Motu cognizance of the matter against all the Respondents R1 through R13 as enshrined in Article 226 of the Constitution of India and award punishment against the charges as follows: • Respondents R1, R2: Liable to pay the damages under article 21 of the Constitution of India for not taking any action in spite of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court thereby causing enormous intentional delay. • Respondents R3, R4, R5: Charges under section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and any other sections as applicable. • Respondent R6: charges under section 441, 327, 503, 504 and 389, 211, 193 of IPC. • Respondents R7, R8, R9: charges under section 441, 327, 503, 504 and 389, 193 of IPC. • Respondents R10, R11, R12: charges under section 420 of IPC and any other sections as applicable. • Respondent R13: charges under Section 167, 218, 220 of IPC and any other sections as applicable.

2. Award compensation to the Petitioner for violation of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article- 21 of the Constitution of India against all the respondents.

3. Award damages/ compensation to the petitioner, for Tort etc. as explained from para No.49 through 57, against all the respondents.

4. Pass such order as this Hon'ble court deems fit based on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of equity and justice.'' - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:98 WP No. 3593 of 2022 HC-KAR

2. Case of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.6 to 9 had approached him seeking him to render tuition to the daughter of respondent Nos.6 and 7. That when he declined, respondent Nos.6 to 9 had abused him and thereafter filed a false Case in FIR No.175/2017 for the offences punishable under the provisions of POCSO Act. Petitioner was subjected to trial.

3. He had engaged services of advocates namely respondent Nos.3 to 5. That they had discontinued the service soon after the first hearing of the trial. Petitioner was therefore constrained to conduct his case as party-in- person. He was ultimately acquitted of the said offences.

4. Thereafter, he approached respondent Nos.10 to 12 who are also advocates seeking their professional assistance to take action against respondent Nos.6 to 9. Respondent Nos.11 to 12 had received an aggregate sum of Rs.45,000/- towards their professional charges on different dates but however did not take any action.

5. It is these three facts which has led the petitioner to file a complaint before the respondent No.1-Commissioner of - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:98 WP No. 3593 of 2022 HC-KAR Police to register case against respondent Nos.6 to 9 for the offences punishable under the Sections 441, 327, 503, 504 and 389 of IPC and for offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC against respondent Nos.10 to 12 for having received a sum of Rs.45,000/-. He had filed a complaint before respondent No.2- Bar Council against respondent Nos.3 to 5.

6. In view of inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2, petitioner on earlier occasion approached this Court, by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.4350/2021, this Court by order dated

10.11.2021 had disposed of the said writ petition, placing on record the submissions made by counsel for the State Bar Council and learned HCGP appearing for the official-respondent, granting two months time thereof.

7. Present petition is filed seeking reliefs as noted hereinabove on the allegations of inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2, despite disposal of the writ petition in W.P.No.4350/2021 by this Court as noted above.

8. As regards to the first aspect of the matter of respondent No.1-Commissioner not taking action, learned AGA draws attention of this Court to the memo dated 13.04.2023, - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:98 WP No. 3593 of 2022 HC-KAR produced before this Court, in which an endorsement dated

09.01.2022 has been issued in compliance to the direction issued by this Court in earlier writ petition. Perusal of the said endorsement indicates that the respondent No.1 has closed the case as they have not found any substance in the allegation made by the petitioner.

9. As regards to the second aspect of the matter namely alleged inaction on the part of respondent No.2-Bar Council, on a query by this Court regarding the status of his complaint filed before respondent No.2-Karnataka Bar Council, petitioner/Party-in-person furnished a copy of communication dated 06.06.2022 addressed by the Karnataka State Bar Council. Perusal of which indicates that the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 has been closed as there was no prima-facie material forthcoming constituting professional misconduct against the respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein, requiring reference of the complaint to the enquiry by the Disciplinary Committee. Accordingly, the complaint has been dropped. The petitioner has not preferred any appeal against the said order as provided under the Advocates Act, 1961. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:98 WP No. 3593 of 2022 HC-KAR

10. In the light of respondent No.1- Police Commissioner and respondent No.2-Bar Council having closed his complaints as noted above, nothing requires further consideration in this writ petition.

11. As regard the third aspect of the matter namely the relief of compensation being sought for by the petitioner, it is necessary to note that the ground for compensation urged in the writ petition is the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in taking the action, purportedly depriving him of justice. Besides, he having lost precious time of one year. Perusal of paragraph No.54 of the writ petition would further indicate that petitioner/party-in-person has also attempted to make out his case of he having been illegally detained for a period of 1068 days. Except this, no other ground is urged for seeking relief of compensation.

12. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KETTAVELLAI @ DEVAKAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU1. Wherein at paragraph No.46 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1439 - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:98 WP No. 3593 of 2022 HC-KAR “46. Recently, this Court, in a case concerning violation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (V.Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 739) and where the accused person had been in prolonged detention, made some observations regarding Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They are extracted below for reference : “28. Some day, the courts, especially the Constitutional Courts, will have to take a call on a peculiar situation that arises in our justice delivery system. There are cases where clean acquittal is granted by the criminal courts to the accused after very long incarceration as an undertrial. When we say clean acquittal, we are excluding the cases where the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a bona fide defective investigation. In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to violation of rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution which may give rise to a claim for compensation.

29. As stated earlier, the appellant has been incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence punishable under the PMLA. In the facts of the case, the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more. If the appellant’s detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial.” Kattavellai @ Devakar has secured a clean acquittal here as well. Let it be clarified that we are not commenting as to whether the day of reckoning with this question has arrived, but we may only see that in case such an approach is adopted, we would not be breaking new ground but only affirming our commitment to the constitutional guarantee of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Law Commission of India in its 277th report titled ‘Wrongful Prosecution Miscarriage of Justice: Legal Remedies’ dealt with this issue. However, the Report confined the understanding of ‘wrongful prosecution’ to include only malicious prosecution, and the prosecution initiated without good faith. It does not, therefore, directly deal with the situation with which we are confronted. In this case, as is obvious, the accused was taken into custody, and it is the judicial process that has taken such a long time to come to a conclusion. The worrying feature here is that the conviction had no legs to stand on whatsoever and yet - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:98 WP No. 3593 of 2022 HC-KAR the Appellant-convict has been in custody for years. In foreign jurisdictions such as the United States of America (M.J.Ryan, ”Compensation for Wrongful Convictions in the United States” in Compensation for Wrongful Convictions – a Comparative Perspective, Jasinski and Kremens (Eds.) 2023) acquittal after a long period of incarceration has led Courts to direct States to award compensation to the persons who suffered behind bars, only to be eventually held innocent. This right to compensation has been recognised by both Federal and State statutes. There are two ways that compensation can be claimed – tort claims/civil rights suits/moral bills of obligation and, statutory claims. Given the variety of statutes across jurisdictions grounds for compensations/procedures vary significantly. Well, it is for the legislature to consider this aspect.”

13. If it is a case of petitioner being maliciously prosecuted, though not specifically pleaded in the petition, no specific provisions are made for payment of any compensation on that count for malicious prosecution petitioner may avail remedy under general law.

14. Accordingly, reserving liberty petitioner/party-in-person to seek such relief as may be available under law, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15