Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Suman Meena D/O Kaduram Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 March, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:3627]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 792/2024
1. Suman Meena D/o Kaduram Meena, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Chainpur, Karauli (Rajasthan).
2. Rinku Kumar Meena S/o Vodya Ram Meena, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Vajheda, District Karuali (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Karauli.
4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Hindauncity,
District Karauli.
5. The Station House Officer, Police Station Masalpur, District
Karauli.
6. Kaduram S/o Ramdhan, Resident Of Chainpura, Tehsil
Karauli, District Karauli.
7. Fouranti Devi W/o Kaduram, Resident Of Chainpura,
Tehsil Karauli, District Karauli.
8. Roopsingh S/o Ramdhan, Resident Of Chainpura, Tehsil
Karauli, District Karauli.
9. Rishikesh S/o Ramdhan, Resident Of Chainpura, Tehsil
Karauli, District Karauli.
10. Kalla S/o Chiranji, R/o Jhadoli, Tehsil Bavanwas, District
Gangapur City.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VR Bajwa, Sr. Adv. (Amicus
Curiae) with
Ms. Savita Nathawat
Mr. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG with
Mr. Tanay Goyal
Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
03/03/2025
1. Today, the matter is listed in ‘To be mentioned’ category.
2. Vide judgment dated 02.08.2024, the primary contentions
of the learned counsel for the petitioner vis-a-vis the issue in delay/non-
consideration of the plea(s) of granting protection to unmarried couples/
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 12:47:43 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:3627] (2 of 8) [CRLW-792/2024]
married couples or any other persons was finally disposed of,
considering the accountability of police authorities in the directions
encapsulated in the dictum of Prakash Singh and & Ors. Vs. Union
of India and ors. reported in 2006 (8) SCC 1, it was directed that the
same be followed in terms of constitution of Police complaints Authority.
The relevant categorical directions passed in the judgment dated
02.08.2024 are reproduced herein below:
“30.5.2 Where the applicant(s) is/are aggrieved of the
decision/inaction of the respective Superintendent of Police
qua the representation as specified in paragraph 30.5.1,
the applicant(s) may file the appropriate complaint before
the appropriate level of the Police Complaints Authority
mechanism, as constituted in pursuance of the directions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Prakash
Singh (supra). Through such a complaint, the
applicant(s) may implead by name the respective Nodal
Officer(s) and/or Superintendent of Police who failed to
discharge their constitutional and statutory obligations as a
police officer, by not considering and disposing of the
representation filed by the applicant(s) in accordance with
the directions of this Court, and/or by colluding with other
social actors or groups in the violation of the applicant(s)’
constitutional rights. Where the respective Police
Complaints Authority concludes that the allegations
levelled against the respective Nodal Officer(s) and/or the
respective Superintendent of Police stand proved, it shall
issue the appropriate binding recommendations to ensure
that the appropriate criminal and/or civil proceedings are
instituted against the respective officer(s) in accordance
with law. In this regard, this Court directs the State
Government to take the requisite steps for the
appointment and constitution of the ‘Police Complaints
Authority’ at the state and district levels in the state of
Rajasthan, in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the judgment in Prakash Singh
(Supra), such that the ‘Police Complaints Authorities’ at
the state and district levels commence their functioning
within one month of the date of this judgment. In case the
State Government fails to ensure compliance with this
direction within the stipulated timeline, this Court would be
compelled to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution to ensure that both levels of the ‘Police
Complaints Authority’ are appointed and constituted
through the directions of this Court. Such directions would
ensure that the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 12:47:43 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:3627] (3 of 8) [CRLW-792/2024]Court in Prakash Singh (supra) are effectuated in the
state of Rajasthan, after the inexplicable prolonged delay
of 18 years on part of the State Government in
implementing the said directions.
30.6 Where the applicant(s) is/are aggrieved of the
decision(s) of the respective Police Complaints Authority in
pursuance of the complaint as specified in paragraph
30.5.2, or where the proceedings before the respective
Police Complaints Authority are not concluded within a
reasonable period of time, the applicant(s) shall be at
liberty to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, for compelling reasons and in
accordance with law. While invoking this Court’s
jurisdiction under Article 226, the applicant(s) shall include
due pleadings and a footnote in the petition disclosing the
details which indicate that the alternative efficacious
remedies have already been availed through filing the
appropriate representations/ complaints before the
respective Nodal Officer(s), Superintendent of Police, and
the appropriate level of the Police Complaints Authority in
accordance with paragraphs 30.1 to 30.5.2 of this
judgment.
30.7. The following flowchart represents the mechanism
delineated under paragraphs 30.1 to 30.6 of this
judgment:
Step 1: The applicant(s) apprehend(s) extra-legal
threats to their lives and liberty on the part of other
social actors/groups.
Step 2: The applicant(s) may file a representation
before a designated Nodal Officer, who may or may not
have territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
[In case the Nodal Officer before whom the
representation is filed does not have territorial
jurisdiction over the matter, the respective Nodal Officer
shall undertake the steps specified in paragraph 30.2 of
this judgment.]
Step 3: The respective Nodal Officer having territorial
jurisdiction over the matter shall implement measures
to ensure interim protection for the applicant(s), if
required, on an immediate basis.
Step 4: The respective Nodal Officer having territorial
jurisdiction over the matter shall consider the
representation, afford an opportunity of appearance and
hearing to the applicant(s) in-person or through an
advocate, and decide on the representation in
accordance with law within the upper limit of 7 days of
the date of receiving the representation.
Step 5: If aggrieved of the decision(s)/inaction of the
respective Nodal Officer(s) as specified in steps 2 to 4,(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 12:47:43 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:3627] (4 of 8) [CRLW-792/2024]the applicant(s) may file a representation before the
respective Superintendent of Police.
Step 6: The respective Superintendent of Police shall
consider and decide on the representation in accordance
with law within the upper limit of 3 days of the date of
receiving the representation.
Step 7: If aggrieved of the decision/inaction of the
respective Superintendent of Police, the applicant(s)
may file a complaint before the appropriate level of the
‘Police Complaints Authority’.
Step 8: Where (and only where) the applicant(s) is/are
aggrieved of the decision of the respective Police
Complaints Authority, or the proceedings before the
respective Police Complaints Authority are not
concluded within a reasonable period of time, the
applicant(s) may invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution for compelling reasons
and in accordance with law.
30.8. The State Government is directed to ensure
that the existing procedures and mechanisms for the
consideration and disposal of representations for enhanced
police protection are brought in compliance with the
directions stipulated in paragraphs 30.1 to 30.5.1 as well
as 30.7 of this judgment, through the promulgation of the
appropriate ‘Standard Operating Procedure’ (SoP). This
Court clarifies that the aforementioned SoP shall specify,
inter alia, the details of the online mechanism as specified
in paragraph 30.1 of this judgment, as well as certain
Whatsapp/ helpline numbers and a designated email ID
where the respective persons who apprehend a threat to
their safety may register their grievances. The State
Government shall ensure that the aforementioned online
mechanism and Whatsapp/helpline numbers and email ID
are effective and functional at all times, and are accessible
to the respective persons who apprehend a threat to their
safety. Further, the aforementioned SoP shall specify the
contact numbers and details of the designated Nodal
Officers. The State Government shall ensure that the
aforementioned SoP is accessible to the police officers and
visitors at every police station, and is publicised widely to
the extent possible through publication in newspapers, on
the appropriate social media handles etc.
31. Before parting with the instant case, this Court
clarifies that the constitutional guarantees under Articles
14 and 21 may require the implementation of measures for
enhanced police protection in the case of persons/groups,
other than couples, who assert their personal autonomy in
defiance of the existing social structures, and thus
apprehend extra-legal threats to their lives and liberty. For
instance, such protection may be required in the case of(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 12:47:43 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:3627] (5 of 8) [CRLW-792/2024]women who face threats of extra-legal violence from their
family members, on account of their choice not to
solemnize marriage at the family’s behest. Such protection
may also be required in the case of the persons, especially
senior citizens, who refuse to concede to the extra-legal
monetary demands made by the dominant political/social
actors in the locality. This Court clarifies that the directions
and procedure specified in paragraphs 30 to 30.8 of this
judgment would apply mutatis mutandis to the
representations/complaints filed before the respective
authorities by applicant(s) other than couples, qua the
apprehended threats to the applicant(s)’ lives and liberty.
32. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure that the
present case is listed before this Court on 9 September
2024 to ascertain compliance with the directions of this
Court regarding the promulgation of the appropriate
‘Standard Operating Procedure’ (SoP), and the appointment
and constitution of the Police Complaints Authority at the
state and district levels in accordance with the directions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh (supra).”
3. A copy of the said judgment was sent to the Chief Secretary
through Registrar (Judicial) for compliance. Thereafter, it was apprised
to this Court, that in compliance of the directions of the Court, a SOP
dated 05.09.2024, lying down the mechanism for safety and protection
of desired persons was issued and same was even approved by the
State Government on 05.09.2024 itself.
4. However, when the said petition was listed for compliance, it
was contended qua creation of Police Complaints Authority, that a public
interest litigation titled as Sanyam Lodha Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. numbering DB (PIL) No. 1447/2022 is subjudice before the
Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. It was also contended by
learned Advocate General that at present new criminal laws the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023
and Bhartiya Sakshay Adhiniyam, 2023 are also enacted and enforced,
which are conscious qua the rights of citizens and in terms of Section
528 of BNSS, 2023, in case of any abuse of law, after following the due
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 12:47:43 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:3627] (6 of 8) [CRLW-792/2024]procedure as stated in the judgment, redressal can be prayed before
the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction.
5. Considering the same for assistance of Court Mr. V. R.
Bajwa, Senior Counsel was appointed as amicus curiae to address and
apprise the Court with the overarching issues. Learned amicus curiae
had furnished the following submissions:
5.1 That as per the dictum enunciated in Prakash Singh
(Supra), the Police Complaints Authority at State and District level was
directed to be formulated with appropriate composition.
5.2 That the State of Rajasthan thereafter, in terms of Rajasthan
Police Act, 2007, had not formulated Police Complaints Authority but a
different committee under the nomenclature of ‘State Police
Accountability Committee’ and ‘District Police Accountability Committee’
with different composition was formulated, however, the said committee
was not complying nor was/is in consonance of the aims and object of
the directions spelled out in the ratio of Prakash Singh (Supra).
5.3 That unlike Maharashtra Police Act, Gujarat Police Act and
Delhi Police Act, who have made an earnest effort to secure and nurture
the spirit of directions, in true spirit, in the State of Rajasthan the same
were not followed.
5.4 That not following the directions of Prakash Singh (supra)
case in true spirit by diluting the composition and constitution has
frustrated the basic and vital purpose of the same, and have failed in
resolving the grievance of public at large, which not only violates the
constitutional rights of the petitioners/citizens but also their
fundamental rights as granted and ensured under the provisions of
Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5.5 That zilch statistics qua Police Complaints Authority are
placed on record, nevertheless the umpteen number of petitions which
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 12:47:43 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:3627] (7 of 8) [CRLW-792/2024]
are filed seeking directions for fair trial or grant of protection under
Section 528 of BNSS or the Section 482 of CrPC, makes it evident that
the grievances of the petitioners/aggrieved parties are not addressed.
5.6 That being a welfare State, the foremost duty of the State is
to take care of its citizens, therefore, pronto actions should be taken in
the instant matter.
5.7 That in DB Criminal Death Reference No. 1/2020, titled
as State of Raj. Vs. Mohd. Salman decided on 29.03.2023, the
Division Bench of the Court has contemplated and emphasized upon the
formation of Police Complaints Authority.
6. Qua the said submission, learned Advocate General has
submitted that after passing the judgment of Prakash Singh (supra),
the Police Act in various states was enacted and the grievance redressal
is duly taken care of. Subsequently, it was contended that if there is
any grievance on the part of the public at large against the police
authorities, there are various other locus also, like Human Rights
Commission, Lokayukts and provisions under BNSS, 2023, additionally
there are various panel/supervisory/statutory provisions enabling the
District Courts and High Court(s) to address the same.
7. At the outset, this Court extends gratitude towards learned
amicus curiae for his assiduous efforts. Consecutively, considering the
foregoing facts and circumstances of the instant matter, and taking note
of the fact that a PIL is subjudice before the Principal Bench, Jodhpur
i.e. Sanyam Lodha Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: DB (PIL) No.
1447/2022, this Court is of the view that parallel proceedings ought
not be initiated/heard. Howsoever, considering the fact that the vital
issue of the dispute is adjudicated and considered vide judgment dated
02.08.2024 (whereby the present petition was disposed of), this Court
directs Registrar (Judicial) to send a copy of the said judgment and
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 12:47:43 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:3627] (8 of 8) [CRLW-792/2024]
place the same before the Bench considering DB (PIL) No. 1447/2022,
alongwith the contentions made by the learned amicus curiae.
8. In light of the above, the lis in hand and petition thereof is
directed to be placed before the competent/concerned Division Bench at
Principal Seat, Jodhpur.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja/81
(Downloaded on 08/03/2025 at 12:47:43 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)