ORDER :

1. The basic grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that he was not subjected to due treatment required under law by the police, when they investigated a dispute he had with his neighbour. His contention was that the law, as settled in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Another, (2014) 8 SCC 73 regarding arrest, has been totally flouted. The further contention was that the high-handedness of the police was such that the petitioner was subjected to physical abuse, both at the spot as well as later in the Police Station.

2. In support of such argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the e-mail sent by his brother at 11:24 AM on the same day as also to the concerned Superintendent of Police, where it is alleged that the police had arrested his brother. Learned counsel further reiterated that there was physical abuse at the Police Station, only because an e-mail was sent to the higher officials, as a knee jerk reaction, a First Information Report was lodged against him two hours later at 01:30PM, at which time the petitioner is said to have been taken into custody.

3. Pursuant to the last Order dated 12.02.2025, the Director General of Police, Haryana, is present.

4. Compliance affidavit has been filed by the State, in which factual aspects have been explained.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials placed on record, we find that there appears to be evident high-handedness on the part of the police in this case. Even if a person may be a criminal', the law requires that he be treated in accordance therewith. Even a criminal', under the law of our land, enjoys certain safeguards in order to ensure protection of his person and dignity. In this case, the petitioner, when picked up by the police, was at best an accused. It is possible to state that a common man can be expected to exceed his limits (whereafter appropriate action in law shall ensue), but not the police.

6. Be that as it may, since already much water has flown and there is a proper police case, of which the concerned Court is in seisin, we consider it appropriate to close the present proceedings. Dependent on the outcome of the police case, parties shall have legal remedies as available in law.

7. However, the concerned police officers are cautioned and warned to be careful in future. The Director General is also directed to ensure that such type of occurrences do not recur and there should be zero-tolerance on behalf of the senior officer(s) with regard to any alleged transgression of authority by any subordinate officer(s). The police is a very vital part of the State apparatus and has a direct bearing on the safety and security of the society at large and individuals in particular. The need, therefore, for maintaining the confidence of individuals and society-at-large in the police is paramount.

8. Learned counsel for the State of Haryana has also shown us the checklist under Section 41(1)(b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Perusal of the same prima facie does not inspire confidence. Rather, it appears that only as a formality, the same has been submitted.

9. We express our strong reservations with regard to filling-up of the checklist in a mechanical manner. Further, we caution and order that in futuro, such acts should not recur.

10. Needless to say, even the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, before whom the checklist is submitted, would also be under an obligation to carefully apply his mind and not, as a matter of routine, accept such checklist.

11. We are confident that the Director General of Police has been appropriately sensitized and expect that transgressions of the nature alleged herein would not happen again. Failing which