AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in a case which was not registered by the Police. The petitioner submits that although there was no Police case registered against him various allegations have been levelled against him by his wife in the Women''s Protection Cell and there is threat of his arrest. The facts leading to such an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner are stated as below.
The petitioner got married on 20th November, 1992, After marriage there were some disputes between the husband and wife and according to the petitioner these disputes were not real but were created because of the caste of the petitioner and he was subjected to cruelty, unfounded allegations were made against him, he was intimated and insulted. The petitioner is working as Lecturer in the Department of Micro Biology, Osmania University, Hyderabad. He also submitted that the marriage had been performed in accordance with the laws of Christianity and he had also not demanded any dowry from the other side. He further states that he had come to know that his wife could not bear any children but inspite of that he never wanted to break the marriage but his wife deserted him and for more than 2 years now she is living separately. Since the petitioner was deserted by his wife for 2 years and he failed in his efforts for reconciliation, he filed proceedings before District Judge, Ranga Reddy district for dissolution of the marriage. The wife approached the Women''s Protection Cell and made certain allegations against the petitioner and the counselling cell summoned the petitioner, but no reconciliation could take place. The petitioner further stated that the Police authorities on 3-9-1998 served an notice on the petitioner directing him to come to the Women''s Protection Cell for further counselling. He states that he would be subjected to harassment and would be implicated in certain criminal cases. He apprehended arrest by the Women''s Protection Cell, therefore filed this petition.
When this case came up before the Court on 7-9-1998 this Court entertained the petition and directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested on the complaint made by the wife of the petitioner with regard to matrimonial disputes. Affidavits were filed and a detailed order was passed by this Court after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the petitioner on 12th October, 1998. The order is reproduced below :
"An affidavit has been filed by the incharge Superintendent of Women Protection Cell, CID, Hyderabad, as directed. It appears that the Voluntary Organisation (Family Counselling Centre) is being practically run by the Police. The application which lias been attached to this affidavit, is addressed to the Chief Counsellor by the wife of the petitioner making allegations against her husband. This application has been produced in original. There is no note on this application by the Chief Counsellor. It appears that it has been received by a Dy. SP who has passed orders on it. He has even directed issuance of notice and has also directed deputing of a police constable for service of notice. Passing orders on an application made to a voluntary organisation prima facie is none of the business of the police force. It is also not the power of the police to serve summons issued by a private organisation. Prima facie it appears that in the name of the Counselling centre, which is supposed to be a voluntary organisation, the organisation is not using itself for voluntary counselling of strained spouses, but is being used as a police organisation without any responsibility. Therefore, some larger question will have to be decided in this matter. The learned Advocate General is, therefore, requested to appear in the matter and assist this Court as a friend of the Court to reach just and proper conclusion.
It is directed that the Chief Counsellor, Family counselling centre, APSSWAB attached to WPC, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad be made as a party to this proceeding and a notice be issued to it also."
Then, the learned Addl. Advocate General appeared on behalf of the Advocate General. Heard the matter.
The facts leading to issue of summons to the petitioner have already been discussed in the order dated 12-10-1998 which were not disputed, however it was said on behalf of the learned Advocate General that Women''s Protection Cell has been established for counselling the spouses who have disputes and Police has no role to play in it. Any voluntary organisation can venture into counselling and settle disputes between the parties provided the parties are willing. No solutions can be imposed upon the parties with regard to disputes by the authorities or institutions which have no such legal right, it has not been shown to me that the respondent No.2 who was added as respondent has any authority in law even to summon a person. The matter becomes more curious when their summons are executed by the Police Officers. The application which has been produced in original shows that the Dy. SP ordered deputing of Police constable for taking the summons issued by Counselling centre. It has also come on record that even the office of the Chief Counsellor is within the premises of office of a Police Officer by name Sri K. Panduranga Reddy who is Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, CID, Hyderabad. He also filed an affidavit. In para 1 of his affidavit he stated :
"I am working as Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, CID, Hyderabad since 1-8-1998 and looking after the work of Women Protection Cell, CID, Hyderabad since 1-8-1998 and am well acquainted with the organisation and facts of the case."
It appears that this Women''s Protection Cell has been created by the Police Department but the affidavit further shows that the Andhra Pradesh State Social Welfare Advisory Board has established ''voluntary Action Bureau'' on the lines of Voluntary Action Bureau started by Central Social Welfare Board, New Delhi. This organisation has been established for rendering services to the women. The State Board is financing this organisation and has provided financial assistance to the tune of Rs.3.20 crores. In para 4 he submits that the Family counselling centre was established in the office of the Director General of Police, CID, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad with the object of;
(i) To provide an input of social intervention through professional counselling in the case of (a) family dispute (out of the purview of law) (b) harassment of women (out of the purview of law)
(ii) To act as a catalyst between Non-Governmental organisation working in the same field and law enforcement machinery i.e., Police and other related departments.
In para 5 he states that;
"5. The primary object of the Family counselling is to make an in depth study of the circumstances leading to misunderstanding between both the spouses. After systematic analysis and hearing both parties, the Counselling Centre will play a role of Counsellor, thus it is only voluntary organisation which is making an effort to reunion of couples and basically counselling to iron out misunderstandings which occur during their family life. However, in this connection, the police have no role to play except delivery of request letters by Family Counselling to the affected parties by fixing a date of mutual dialogue or counselling for understanding and to facilitate counselling. The Women''s protection cell has no role to play in the functioning of family counselling centres or associate themselves with such counselling."
It is clear from the counter affidavit of Superintendent of Police that Police have no role assigned to them by any law in monitoring or in the functions of Family counselling centre but he states that delivery of request letters by Family counselling to the affected parties is being done by the Police. The Police force works under definite statutes. In case of investigation of cases it will have the powers given to it under Code of Criminal Procedure and if the Cr.PC does not allow the Police force to use its constabulary for service of summons of voluntary organisations on citizens, how can the Police force depute its constabulary for doing the work which is meant to be done by such voluntary organisations. Much discussion is not needed on the question that Police has no powers at all other than those given to them by statute. In the present case, following circumstances show that this voluntary organisation without any authority of law is being used as a part of Police organisation.
(1) That the Cell is established within the office of the Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, CID.
(2) That a Women''s Protection Cell has been created by the Police to which this Counselling centre has been attached.
(3) Summons of the Counselling centre are being served on the people through Police constables.
All these circumstances point out that the respondent No.2 though being a voluntary organisation without any statutory powers to handle the disputes between the husband and wife is using extra judicial powers with the help of Police force which cannot be permitted in any situation.
Smt. C. Sandhya Padma who is Counsellor of Family counselling Centre also has not disputed the facts. She states that counselling failed and finally a date was fixed for counselling when the petitioner did not appear, then he was approached and he was again requested to come at 5.00 p.m. on a particular date but again he failed to appear, thereafter his wife was advised to take recourse to law. She approached the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell who enquired from the Counsellor about the progress in the matter. While the story was narrated to him, he deputed a lady constable by name Mrs. Debora for serving the request letter to the petitioner to attend on 7-9-1998 for counselling.
As has already been stated this counselling centre has no statutory powers. It cannot issue summons, it cannot force parties to appear before it. Therefore, if a person voluntarily appears, they may try to iron out the differences between the parties but if one of the spouses is not prepared to come over to the counselling centre he cannot at all be forced. Once a Police Officer goes with a summons which is termed as a letter of request, it creates a harassment and in my view Police force have no authority to take a summons from voluntary organisation for service on anybody. The Superintendent of Police has no authority to depute his constable for summoning people on behalf of a voluntary organisation.
The pleadings of the parties reveal that no case at all has been registered against the petitioner, therefore there is no question of granting of anticipatory bail. However, in the light of the discussion above, following directions are given.
(1) That, henceforth respondent No.2 shall act independently without any help from Police organisation.
(2) That, no summons or requests issued by respondent No.2 for appearing before it, to anybody, shall be executed by the Police constabulary.
(3) The Office of the Voluntary organisation shall be shifted (o a separate premises which is not controlled by the Police organisation.
Before parting with the case, I would like to observe that the respondent No.2 is engaged in a noble cause but for achieving a noble cause the means must be legal. Illegal means and means which are not permitted by law cannot be allowed to be adopted. If the State wants that this Voluntary organisation should have power to summon people, then, suitable laws can be made for that purpose, but as far as laws as on today in this State this organisation has no power whatsoever to force any person to appear before them much less to execute its summons through Police force.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.