The Supreme Court ordered a public apology from a police officer who falsely implicated a man and his father-in-law, saying, “What they suffered cannot be compensated” after they spent 109 and 103 days in jail.
An IPS officer has been ordered to publicly apologize without conditions to her former husband and in-laws for the “physical and mental agony” they experienced after she filed multiple false criminal charges against them during their marital dispute.
The Supreme Court also dismissed all ongoing cases related to this matter.
The bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih, also dissolved the marriage, as the couple had been separated since 2018.
The court decided that their daughter would live with her mother, while the father and other family members would have visitation rights.
In its ruling, the court noted that the husband had spent 109 days in jail and his father 103 days due to the criminal cases initiated by the wife.
Mandating the officer to issue a public apology, the court remarked,
“What they have suffered cannot be compensated in any way,”
The judges stated,
“The woman and her parents shall tender an unconditional apology to her husband and his family members, which shall be published in the national edition of a well-known English and Hindi newspaper,”
This apology must also be shared on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and other similar social media sites within three days of the order. The judges clarified that it would not be considered an admission of liability and would have no bearing on the legal rights, obligations, or consequences under the law.
Additionally, the court instructed the woman “not to use her position and power” or that of her colleagues to initiate any proceedings against her husband and his family. The husband was similarly cautioned not to exploit her apology in any way.
The woman had filed various criminal cases against her husband and his family, while also pursuing divorce and maintenance in family court. In response, her husband filed counterclaims, along with cases initiated by third parties.
Both parties had requested the Supreme Court to transfer the cases to their respective jurisdictions.
Case Title: Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal
Read Attachment
READ MORE REPORTS ON SECTION 498A