The Allahabad High Court has ruled that illegal police detention is a direct violation of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, declaring that security proceedings under Section 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be used as a tool to cover up police high-handedness in domestic disputes. In a judgment delivered by Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar, the Court held that the police have no authority to intervene in domestic squabbles unless a cognizable offense has occurred. Observing that the petitioner’s 24-hour detention in a police lockup was entirely unauthorized, the Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Rs. 25,000 in ad hoc compensation and Rs. 10,000 in litigation costs, granting the State the liberty to recover these amounts directly from the salary of the responsible police officer.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Matambar Mishra, a resident of Mehmoorganj in the Varanasi district, had traveled to his native village, Sidhwar, under the Handia Police Station in Prayagraj, to look after his agricultural land. On November 26, 2022, after returning from his fields at around 3:00 p.m., Surya Prakash Dubey, the then In-charge of the Baraut Police Outpost, entered Mishra’s residence. Without disclosing any reasons, Dubey dragged Mishra out of his home—dressed only in a lungi and kurta—and took him to the Baraut Police Outpost, before conveying him to the Handia Police Station lockup.
Mishra was confined in the police lockup for approximately 24 hours, from November 26, 2022, to November 27, 2022. The petition alleged that during this period, Dubey demanded a bribe of Rs. 20,000 for Mishra’s release. Despite the efforts of Mishra’s younger brother and an advocate, Rahul Mishra, to secure his release, the police remained elusive. Mishra was finally released at 4:00 p.m. on November 27, 2022, after allegedly being forced to pay the bribe.
Mishra’s son, Ashish Kumar Mishra, an advocate practicing in Delhi, sent formal complaints to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, the Director General of Police, and the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj. Following this, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Handia, was directed to conduct an inquiry. However, the ACP submitted an inquiry report on December 28, 2022, rejecting the complaints on specious grounds without recording the statements of the petitioner, his son, or a key village witness, Devi Shankar Mishra, who had visited the petitioner in the lockup to deliver home-cooked food.
Furthermore, on November 29, 2022, two days after Mishra’s release, proceedings under Section 107/116 of the CrPC were initiated against him. The petitioner contended that these proceedings were a panic-driven measure to cover up the illegal 24-hour detention.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner argued that his detention was a brazen violation of his fundamental right to liberty. He pointed out that the ACP’s inquiry was a sham as it completely ignored testimony from vital witnesses. He further argued that Section 107/116 CrPC proceedings are intended to prevent breaches of public peace and cannot be legally invoked in a private domestic dispute between him and his brother’s daughter-in-law, Ritika.
On behalf of the State, the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) (Judicial), Etah, filed a counter-affidavit admitting that the notice under Section 111 CrPC was issued purely based on a report forwarded by the Handia Police Station. The ADM admitted that the domestic violence aspect was overlooked at the time of issuing the notice, describing it as an “inadvertent omission” and tendering an unconditional apology to the Court. The ADM also stated that the notices were never served or executed upon the petitioner and had lapsed over time.
The police officer, Surya Prakash Dubey, filed a personal counter-affidavit on December 3, 2025. He did not explicitly deny dragging the petitioner from his home or detaining him in the lockup. Instead, he claimed that both parties had voluntarily come to the police outpost and mutually agreed to a compromise prepared by their advocate, Rahul Mishra, regarding a domestic violence complaint filed by Ritika.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court began by noting that the petition presented a peculiar scenario: “This is a writ petition, which discloses a very substantial cause of action, but seeks a non-substantial relief.” Although the petitioner had deleted his prayer to quash the ACP’s inquiry report and had only formally prayed for a fresh inquiry by a superior officer, the Court decided to invoke its power to “mould relief” under Residual Clause No. 3 to do complete justice.
Evaluating the security proceedings, the Court observed that a domestic dispute does not attract Chapter VIII of the CrPC. Citing the Bombay High Court ruling in Fayyaz Shamshoddin Attar v. State of Maharashtra and others (2015), the Court emphasized:
“Those proceedings are essentially designed to preserve peace and public tranquility. Such proceedings are about public peace and tranquility and not domestic peace or tranquility.“
The Court rejected Officer Dubey’s assertion that the petitioner had voluntarily walked into the police station to sign a compromise. Critiquing this defense, the Court remarked:
“He is a police officer, who is feared because he possesses the coercive authority of the State.“
The Court added:
“It is impossible that the petitioner would have walked in to the police outpost or the station to compromise.“
Since Dubey’s affidavit lacked a specific denial regarding the dragging and the lockup confinement, the Court deemed the allegations of illegal detention admitted. It noted that if Ritika had a complaint of domestic violence, her proper legal remedy lay in approaching a Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the police had no role in the matter.
The Court held that the subsequent Section 107/116 CrPC proceedings were merely an afterthought to cover up the administrative overreach. On the violation of Article 21, the Court observed:
“We are convinced that Dubey has recklessly violated the most fundamental essence of this most valuable fundamental right by dragging the petitioner out of his home on the basis of a complaint, he was not authorized to act upon, and, then, carrying the petitioner away in custody, first to the police outpost, Baraut and then confining him in the police lockup at Police Station Handia from 26.11-2022 to 27.11.2022 without the authority of law..“
The Court referred to the Delhi High Court judgment in Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others (2023) and the landmark Supreme Court rulings in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), which established that constitutional courts have the power to award monetary compensation in public law for the established violation of fundamental rights under Article 21.
The Court also referenced its own Division Bench decision in Shiv Kumar Verma and another v. State of U.P. and another (2021), which recognized the U.P. State Government’s policy dated March 23, 2021. This policy mandates the payment of Rs. 25,000 in compensation to any citizen subjected to illegal detention, with the provision to recover the amount from the guilty officer.
To support its decision to grant monetary compensation despite the absence of a formal prayer in the writ petition, the Court cited the Supreme Court decision in M. Sudakar v. V. Manoharan and others (2011) and the Orissa High Court decision in Berhampur University and another v. Ganesh Chandra Behera and others (2021) on the judicial power to mould reliefs.
The Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000. It issued a mandamus directing the State respondents to pay Matambar Mishra an ad hoc compensation of Rs. 25,000 within thirty days of the communication of the order.
The Court granted the State the liberty to recover the total sum of compensation and litigation costs from the personal remuneration of Surya Prakash Dubey. The Court clarified that the petitioner remains free to bring a regular civil suit for damages before a court of competent jurisdiction, where any final damages awarded will take into account the ad hoc compensation granted in this writ proceeding.
Case Details
Case Title: Matambar Mishra Versus The State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. – 3807 of 2023
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar
Date: May 29, 2026
