Bengaluru: Holding as illegal the arrest of an attesting witness to a disputed will 48 hours before the expiry of notice for his appearance, the Karnataka high court has directed the investigating officer of the Whitefield police station and his superiors to pay Rs 3 lakh in compensation to the aggrieved person.The compensation shall be paid to the petitioner — KN Mohan Reddy— by the investigating officer, the assistant commissioner of police and deputy Commissioner of police, who were responsible for directing the illegal arrest.“The amount shall not be borne by the state exchequer. This is not punishment for an error of judgment. It is the consequence of exercising coercive state power in the teeth of an express statutory safeguard,” Justice M Nagaprasanna specified in his interim order passed Thursday.Reddy was arraigned as accused no 2 along with one Vishal Baliga and another person, in connection with a forged will case. On Aug 25, KR Sunil Kumar, PSI of Whitefield station, who is the investigating officer in the case, issued a notice, requiring Reddy to appear before him at 11 am on Aug 27. However, on Aug 25, Reddy was arrested. His counsel moved the high court and an interim order directing his immediate release was ordered. The high court also directed the personal appearance of the investigating officer on April 27.When queried about the illegal arrest of the petitioner, the investigating officer could not give any proper explanation.Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the dispute, on its face, bore the complexion of a civil contest.“Whether the will is genuine, valid, duly executed or otherwise is a matter resting within the province of the competent civil court. The petitioner is not the propounder of the will. He is not its beneficiary. His admitted role is that of an attesting witness,” the judge added.“To permit an attesting witness to be hauled into criminal proceedings merely because the instrument attested by him subsequently becomes contentious would place every witness to a document under the perpetual shadow of criminal prosecution,” the judge pointed out.“The sequence of events leaves little room for ambiguity. When police themselves commanded the petitioner to appear on Aug 27, 2026 at 11 am, the law necessarily afforded him until that hour to demonstrate compliance. Non-cooperation cannot precede the opportunity to cooperate. Disobedience cannot be presumed before the command becomes enforceable. Yet, in the case at hand, the petitioner was arrested before the clock could even begin to test his obedience to the notice,” the judge pointed out.The protective order passed by the court on Aug 25 will be limited to petitioner only and shall not ensure to the benefit of accused no 1, the judge specified in his order while posting the matter to September 3 for further consideration.
