IMPORTANT POINT
Arrest of a woman, a leader of Trade Union at 5.30 a.m. from her house by a lady constable for an offence u/s 147/323/427 IPC, held to be not violative of her fundamental rights and no ground has been made out for initiating any action against the concerned police officials.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 50-Constitution of India-Art. 32-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147/323/427-Arrest of petitioner, a woman leader-Challenged as amounting to violation of her fundamental rights-Her allegation that she was arrested at 1.30 a.m. in the night-Only affidavit on record is that of petitioner herself-Police case that she was arrested at 5.30 a.m. in morning supported by affidavits of many police officials-Petitioner did not make any grievance before the Magistrate regarding non-compliance of directions issued by Supreme Court regarding making arrest (Joginder Kumar and D.K. Basu cases)-Affidavits filed revealed that name plate showing names and designation were on uniform of all the police personnel-It was a lady constable who had formally arrested petitioner 1-Grounds of arrest were disclosed not only to her but also to her son and husband-Her family members were throughout with her at police station-No ground made out for initiating any action against respondent police officials.
       Held : The affidavit filed by the parties show that Rajkumari, petitioner No.1 is a leader of CITU. A call for strike on 11.8.1997 was given by the union leaders and their demands were that the judgment of the Supreme Court by which directions had been issued for shifting and closure of industries from Delhi should be reviewed, the workers should be paid a minimum wage of Rs. 3,100/- and some facilities should be provided to jhuggi dwellers who had in fact encroached upon public land. The strikers went on rampage and turned violent. They caused extensive damage to the property of some industrial units and also caused injuries to several persons. In this connection an FIR was lodged by Shri R.C. Joshi, Manager of a factory situate at A-8 and A-9, Sector 57, Noida on 11.8.1997 under Sections 147/323/427/506 IPC at P.S. Sector 58 Noida and on the basis of the same a case was registered as Case Crime No.327H. Another FIR was lodged by Chheda Lal Shukla, Director of M. Plast India Ltd., A-15, Sector 60, Noida under Section 147/323/427 IPC at the same police station and a case was registered as Case Crime No. 327G. The owners of the industrial units were feeling insecure on account of the assault made upon them and the damage caused to their property and they were feeling aggrieved on account of the inaction of the district authorities in not taking the desired steps against the erring persons. On account of the pressure built by them, the District Magistrate and the S.S.P. issued directions to the police personnel of the concerned police station to arrest the leaders of the workers who had resorted to violence. According to the respondents, the investigation done by them showed that petitioner No.1 Rajkumari was leading a mob of workers and had incited them and as a result whereof, they caused injuries to the managing staff and owners of the industrial units and caused damage to the property. In fact, the police after completing investigation has submitted charge sheet against petitioner No.1 under Sections 147/323/427 IPC in case Crime No. 327G and under Sections 147/323/427/506 IPC in Case Crime No.327H on 11.10.1998. The concerned ACJM has taken cognizance of the offences and has issued process against petitioner No.1 vide his orders dated 2.11.1998. The petitioner No.1 is now facing trial in the aforesaid two criminal cases. (Para 11)
       In view of these conflicting affidavits and no independent or corroborative material having been filed on behalf of the petitioners, it is not possible to hold that petitioner No.1 had been arrested at 1.30 a.m. in the night intervening 15/16.8.1997 or that the version given by the respondents that she was arrested at 5.30 a.m. on 16.8.1997 is not correct. In case the investigation officer of Case Crime No. 327G and 327H came to the conclusion that petitioner No.1 had committed cognizable offences, he was perfectly within his right to arrest her and no exception can be taken to such a course of action. (Para 12)
       On the material which is available on record, it is not possible to hold that the directions issued in Joginder Kumar (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) were flouted or were not complied with by the respondents. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no ground has been made out for initiating any action against the respondents. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

G.P. Mathur, J.-These writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution have been filed praying that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ be issued directing the respondents to stop arresting women between sunset and sunrise except in grave offences like murder and to ensure that if a woman is kept in police station, she should be allowed to have a relative with her and in her view. The other prayer made is to issue a direction to the Director General of Police, U.P. to take appropriate action to punish the police personnel involved in the arrest of petitioner No.1. Contempt petitions have also been filed against Shri Devinder Singh, SHO, P.S. Sector 20, Noida for punishing him for having committed contempt of the orders and directions issued by this Court.

2. The case set up in the writ petitions is that petitioner No.1, Smt. Rajkumari is resident of F-143, BHEL Colony, Sector 16, Noida and petitioner No.2, Smt. Brinda Karat is the General Secretary, All India Democratic Womens Conference, which is an organisation concerned with the right to equality and democratic rights of women in the country. The workers of Noida Industrial Area, Faridabad and Delhi went on one, day s strike on 11.8.1997. On the same day at the behest of the employers, cases were registered against leaders and other workers in Noida and in connection therewith 70 workers were arrested. At about 1.30 a.m. in the night intervening 15/16.8.1997 a police party consisting of one lady Constable and four other police personnel, came to the house of petitioner No.1 Smt. Rajkumari and starting banging on the front door. The son of petitioner No.1 opened the door and requested the police party to come in the morning and the husband of petitioner No. 1 also said that if there was any warrant of arrest against her, he would ensure that she came to the police station in the morning. However, the police personnel barged inside and took petitioner No.1 in custody and thereafter she was taken to the police station in Sector 58, where she was interrogated for over 1-1/2 hours. The police personnel wanted to know the names of the main leaders who organised the strike and also the addresses of two other women workers, namely, Lata Singh and Manju. Though petitioner No.1 was alleged to have committed offences under Sections 147/323/427 IPC, which are bailable offences, et, she was taken into custody and was brought to the police station. The provisions of Section 50, Cr.P.C. were not complied with and she was not informed as to why she was being arrested, nor the grounds, of her arrest were disclosed to her. Similarly the safeguards contained in DO letter dated 10/14.3.1980 of the Home Secretary, Government of India were also not complied with. It is thus pleaded that the arrest of petitioner No.1 violated her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

3. The writ petitions were heard on 20.4.1998 when an order was passed directing the petitioners to clearly indicate as to which of the directions issued by this Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 1349 and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610 had been flouted by the respondents and if so, by whom? Thereafter, petitioner No.1 filed another affidavit and the principal pleas taken therein are that the police personnel including Shri P.R. Singh and Shri Devinder Singh, who came to arrest her, did not bear any name tags with designation; that no memo of arrest was prepared at the time of arrest of petitioner No.1; that petitioner No.1 was not informed of her right that she is entitled to meet her lawyer during interrogation and that there was no necessity to arrest her during the middle of the night.

4. In the contempt petitions it is averred that as Shri Devinder Singh, S.H.O., P.S. Sector 20, Noida arrested petitioner No.1 in disobedience of the law laid down and the directions issued in Joginder Kumar (supra) and D.K. Bas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 932

IMPORTANT POINTArrest of a woman, a leader of Trade Union at 5.30 a.m. from her house by a lady constable for an offence u/s 147/323/427 IPC, held to be not violative of her fundamental rights and no ground has been made out for initiating any action against the concerned police officials.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Arrest of a woman, a leader of Trade Union at 5.30 a.m. from her house by a lady constable for an offence u/s 147/323/427 IPC, held to be not violative of her fundamental rights and no ground has been made out for initiating any action against the concerned police officials.