The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. A Paithan man, a Scheduled Caste man arrested on 14 June 2015 in a theft case, alleged illegal detention, assault and abuse by Police Inspector of Paithan Police Station. A Commission inquiry found excesses, and the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) directed the officer to pay Rs. 75,000 from his own pocket. The Supreme Court upheld that judgment and recorded its own finding that the officer, being in a position of power, totally abused his official position. It held him liable for a further Rs. 1,00,000 (paid during proceedings), refraining from directing criminal prosecution only because he had superannuated and paid compensation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
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 →By judgment dated 18 March 2024 in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2600 of 2019, the Supreme Court of India returned findings adverse to the Police Inspector, Paithan Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000).
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 18 March 2024 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
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.
Holding not recorded separately.
“A zero-tolerance approach towards such high-handed acts needs to be adopted as such acts, committed by persons in power against an ordinary citizen, who is in a non-bargaining position, bring shame to the entire justice delivery system.” (para 23)
The Supreme Court of India recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.
(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.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.
