CW-2016-0003Bhopal, Madhya PradeshJudgment 3 June 2016

Bhopal Woman and Anr. vs State of M.P. and Ors.

The Supreme Court held the arrest and detention of Dr. A Bhopal woman, an NRI doctor, and her septuagenarian advocate mother illegal and awarded Rs 5 lakh each as public-law compensation. On a Jabalpur complainant's civil dispute over an imaging-machine purchase given criminal colour in FIR 24/2012, Cyber Cell Bhopal arrested the women at their Pune residence on 27 November 2012 without following Sections 41/41-A CrPC or the D.K. Basu norms, transported them to Bhopal in an unreserved train compartment without producing them before the local Magistrate, and kept them in custody for weeks. The Court held their dignity seriously jeopardized, quashed the prosecution, and left the State at liberty to proceed against the erring officials. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 3 June 2016 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 30 of 2015, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 4 police personnel, namely: Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cyber Cell, Bhopal; Head Constable, Cyber Cell, Bhopal; Police personnel, Cyber Cell, Bhopal; Police personnel, Cyber Cell, Bhopal, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000).

Register number
MP 01 CW 0003
Case reference
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 30 of 2015 / (2016) 11 SCC 703
Court and date
Supreme Court of India (Coram: Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.), 3 June 2016
Officer(s) at the material time
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cyber Cell, Bhopal; Head Constable, Cyber Cell, Bhopal; Police personnel, Cyber Cell, Bhopal; Police personnel, Cyber Cell, Bhopal
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 66-D of the IT Act
Finding of the Court (extract)
“the dignity of the petitioners, a doctor and a practicing Advocate has been seriously jeopardized” (at para 23)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 10 lakh (Rs 10,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Supreme Court of India judgment dated 3 June 2016 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“the dignity of the petitioners, a doctor and a practicing Advocate has been seriously jeopardized” (para 23)

Institutional response

1
3 Jun 2016

Order issued

Concluded
Supreme Court of India External · Binding

The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 1,000,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: (2016) 11 SCC 703
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.