Supreme Court: In a criminal special leave petition against Rajasthan High Court’s decision whereby the petitioner’s miscellaneous petition seeking the basis of statements made by the police which allegedly humiliated her, was dismissed, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. dismissed the petition stating that during court proceedings, many statements are made and questions are posed which may make a person uncomfortable, but all such statements or questions cannot be misconstrued as humiliating a person.
Background
The petitioners filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court alleging that their mother was in unauthorized detention of the private respondents and the police could not trace their mother despite missing reports. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners’ mother returned home and consequently, the High Court dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition as having become infructuous.
The petitioner’s case was that during the course of hearing of the Habeas Corpus petition, the police officials made a statement, asserting that a divorce decree has been passed with respect to the marriage between petitioner 1 and her husband; and that petitioner 1’s husband got remarried. The petitioner 1 alleged that she was humiliated and defamed in open Court during the hearing. It was claimed that she requested the High Court, to direct the police officials concerned to furnish a clarification explaining the veracity of such statement. This request was accepted by the High Court, but on the next date of hearing, the Habeas Corpus petition itself was dismissed.
The petitioners filed a review petition, which came to be dismissed. stop here. Later, a miscellaneous application was filed before the High Court praying that the previous orders should be looked into and an explanation must be sought from the police authorities, clarifying the basis on which they made statements regarding the divorce of petitioner 1. Vide the impugned order, the miscellaneous application was dismissed.
Decision
The Court on perusal of the High Court’s order noted that no such direction as to submission in writing the basis on which the remarks in question were made. The Court said that the grievance of petitioner 1, that she was defamed by the statements of the police officials and was humiliated in open court, was misconceived. The Court added that even if such statements were made before the High Court, it did not amount to humiliation of the petitioner 1.
The Court remarked that, during court proceedings, many statements are made and questions are posed which may make a person uncomfortable, but all such statements or questions cannot be misconstrued as humiliating a person. The Court stated that it is the duty of the Court to reach the truth of the matter and such exercise may demand putting forward certain questions and suggestions which may be uncomfortable to some.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
