Orissa High Court dismisses plea over ‘police harassment’ after man’s argument with gym owner leads to bad Google review

Justice Savitri Ratho was hearing a petition filed by one Abhijeet Acharya. (Image enhanced using AI)

Noting that amicable settlement is preferred in such matters, the court observed in its order on February 26, “…amicable settlement and mediation is/are a laudable method(s) for settlement of disputes and misunderstandings. It is a preferred mode of settlement as it preserves relationships and clears petty misunderstanding.”

Background

• The dispute began after the petitioner faced alleged discriminatory and humiliating behaviour from the owner and staff of a gym over a minor issue regarding wearing gym shoes outside the entrance area of the facility.
• Following the incident, the petitioner posted negative reviews about the gym on its Google page on February 23, 2024.
• After the gym owner complained to the police, several police personnel came to his residence, allegedly abused him, threatened him with arrest and forced him to delete the online reviews.
• The petitioner and his mother later sought information through applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding the police action, claiming that there was no official deployment of police personnel or registration of an FIR.

Petitioner’s arguments

• Advocate Debasis Debadarshan, who appeared for the petitioner, stated that Acharya had been subjected to discriminatory and inhuman behaviour by the gym owner and staff over a trivial issue relating to the wearing of gym shoes outside the entrance area.
• After the incident, he posted negative Google reviews about the gym as a response to the alleged incident.
• It was alleged that several police personnel came to his residence based on an oral complaint by the gym owner.
• The police allegedly abused him, threatened him with arrest and forced him to delete his online reviews.
• The petitioner sought directions for an independent inquiry into the alleged abuse of police authority and sought preservation of CCTV footage from the police station.

What the state said

• The state submitted that the gym owner had complained that the petitioner was posting defamatory messages on Google reviews after the cancellation of his gym membership.
• The police had only conducted a preliminary inquiry and called both parties to the police station.
• Both parties subsequently resolved the dispute amicably and submitted a written settlement before the police.
• The petitioner had also approached the Odisha Human Rights Commission and the State Information Commission regarding the same issue.
• Since those authorities had already passed orders and the petitioner had not challenged them, the present petition was not maintainable.

Court’s observations

• The court noted that the Odisha Human Rights Commission had already examined the complaint and found no merit in the allegations. The Commission observed that no formal criminal case had been registered and that the matter had been resolved through an amicable settlement between the parties.
• “I am not satisfied that the prayers in the writ petition should be allowed by exercising power under Article 226 (power of high courts to issue certain writs) of the Constitution as the incident is of the year 2024 and the petitioner and his mother have approached other fora and authorities in the meanwhile and alternate remedies are available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievances by challenging the orders of the authorities”, the court said.
• The court further observed that the petitioner had also pursued remedies under the RTI Act but had not challenged the orders passed by the State Information Commission. In such circumstances, the high court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction.
• The court also refused the request to preserve CCTV footage, observing that such footage is not preserved indefinitely and the alleged incident had occurred nearly two years earlier.

Observation on police-mediated settlements

• Pointing out that an amicable settlement is preferred in such instances, the court stated that an amicable settlement is supposed to be voluntary and free from pressure or threats.
• The police “should exercise restraint and be doubly sure that the settlement is voluntary” and the parties involved do not feel pressurised or threatened.
• Holding that the petitioner had alternative remedies available and had already approached multiple forums, the court disposed of the petition.
• It clarified that the petitioner remains free to challenge the orders of the Odisha Human Rights Commission and the State Information Commission before the appropriate forum if he wishes to pursue the matter further.

With inputs from Sumit Kumar Singh. Sumit is an intern with The Indian Express.