Tripura High Court rejects Congress leader Rs 10 lakh compensation claim over police raid at home in 2020

Background

Former MLA and state president of the Congress, Roy, sought compensation alleging violation of his fundamental rights to free movement, free expression, privacy, life, and personal liberty under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The bench was informed that the police personnel conducted the search during the COVID-19 pandemic at his residence in 2020 as a part of investigation under Sections 469 (forgery for harming reputation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC involving the alleged use of a forged letterhead containing the state emblem of India.

The FIR was lodged by Additional Public Prosecutor Arabinda Deb, alleging that Roy had used a forged letterhead bearing the State Emblem of India with the intent to damage the reputation of the then Chief Minister of Tripura Biplab Kumar Deb.

Biplab Kumar Deb is BJP leader who served as the 10th Chief Minister of Tripura from 2018 to 2022. (File Photo)

According to the allegations, the forged letter pertained to statements circulated in the media accusing the then Chief Minister of providing false, fabricated, and misleading information regarding COVID-19 infections in Manipur and Karimganj, allegedly causing panic in the State.

The State, however, contended that no sufficient grounds were found to proceed with an investigation on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner.

Roy’s initial claim for compensation was dismissed by a Single Judge Bench in 2023. Aggrieved by the dismissal, he has approached the court through the present proceedings challenging that order.

Decision

Dismissing the plea, the bench agreed with the single judge’s view that the high court cannot express an opinion on whether law enforcement violated the law, given the conflicting accounts of the event.

The bench agreed with the direction of the politician being asked to approach the civil court to seek compensation.

Noting that the trial court had previously dismissed a police application for a search warrant on April 6, 2020, citing a failure to meet procedural requirements, the high court declined to comment on the correctness of that specific order to avoid prejudicing future proceedings.

“Though Counsel for the appellants has sought to contend that the judgment of the learned single judge is erroneous, we are not inclined to agree with the said contention. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in so far he directed the appellant to approach the Civil Court for seeking compensation,” the bench said.