Police Are Custodian of Law; Not supposed to Misuse It: Bombay HC Quashes FIR Against Man Booked For Spying

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice RN Ladha recently quashed an FIR against a person which was registered against him by the Mira Road Police Station for taking photos and videos inside the police station. The said person was booked under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act by the police for spying.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted before the high court that the petitioner was a complainant in a case. The petitioner was called to the police station by constable Sanjay Utekar. When the petitioner reached the police station, he saw that the accused in the case registered by the petitioner was present at the police station. The API Vijay Chavan abused the petitioner and used filthy language against the petitioner.

Allegedly, the accused present at the police station told the petitioner that he had bribed the police officials and if the case registered by the petitioner was not withdrawn, the police would register a case against him.

According to the petitioner, he was called again to the police station on the same day. The police asked the petitioner to click pictures and videos of some documents for him to show them to his advocate. When the petitioner clicked the pictures of the documents the police booked him under the Official Secrets Act.

The counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the petitioner was made to sign some blank documents by the police and was allowed to leave the police station after registration of the offence.

The High Court while noting that the provisions of the Act were malafidely invoked by the police officials said that,

“Prima facie, the Official Secrets Act appears to have been malafidely invoked by the concerned Police. By no stretch of imagination, Section 3 could have been invoked in the facts of the present case. It is pertinent to note that the definition of 'prohibited place' as defined in section 2(8) of the Official Secrets Act, is an exhaustive definition, which does not specifically include 'Police Station' as one of the places or establishments.”

The High Court while highlighting the repercussions and reputation of the person against whom the offence of spying had been invoked noted that,

“By no stretch of imagination, can the act of taking photos/video, as stated aforesaid, be said to be an act constituting an offence of 'spying'. The word 'spying' has serious connotations and the police have to be mindful of the same. Invocation of the Official Secrets Act has serious repercussions on a person’s life, reputation and career. It cannot and must not be lightly invoked.”

The High Court took note of the fact that a police station is a place where people can freely walk and lodge complaints. The court said,

“Police being the custodians of law are duty bound to uphold it and not misuse it. 'Police Station' do not come within the definition of 'prohibited place', as defined in the Official Secrets Act. Police Stations are places, where people are free to go/walk in, to lodge a complaint/FIR, to redress the wrong/injustice done to them”

The High Court quashed the FIR and the proceedings against the accused and imposed a cost of Rs. 25000 on the state government and directed the government to recover the cost of Rs. 25000 from the salary of the police officer who was responsible for lodging the FIR.

Case Title: Zishan Mukhtar Hussain Siddique vs State of Maharashtra