Taking minor to trace father not part of police duty, says Delhi court

A Delhi court has dismissed a plea by four Gujarat Police officers accused of taking a minor boy from Delhi to Ahmedabad while looking for his father, observing that their official duties did not authorise them to take custody of the child and use him to pressure his father to surrender.

Further Sessions Judge Parveen Singh, in an August 12 order, said the officers were tasked with tracing the boy’s father. This person was wanted in a criminal case, and not with taking the child throughout State borders.

The court sharply criticised the alleged conduct of the officers, saying they had acted like “colonial overlords” by taking the child and using him as “bait” to compel his father to surrender.

The court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the four policemen against a trial court order that had taken cognisance of the alleged offence and directed that charges be framed against them.

The case dates back to May 25, 2008, when the mother of the boy complained that five or six Gujarat Police personnel in plain clothes arrived at a scrap shop in Delhi run by her. They were allegedly looking for her husband. This person was an accused in a criminal case.

The police officers allegedly took the minor from his mother’s custody and transported him to Gujarat.

According to the judgment, the boy was allegedly confined and subjected to abuse and beatings during the journey. The prosecution also relied on his statement recorded before a magistrate. It allegedly stated that he was kept in a police lock-up and tortured.

Administration sanction

The officers sought protection available to public servants, arguing that they had been acting in the discharge of their official duties while searching for an absconding accused. They contended that prior government sanction was therefore necessary before they could be prosecuted.

The court rejected the argument, holding that merely acting in an official capacity was not enough to claim such protection. The alleged act itself must have a reasonable connection with the official duty, it said.

Taking the minor from his mother’s custody and transporting him to Ahmedabad to locate his father “can by no stretch of imagination” be regarded as part of the officers’ official duties, the court held.

The court consequently dismissed the revision petition and upheld the trial court’s orders taking cognisance of the case and directing the framing of charges for the alleged kidnapping.