Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Mayank Kumar, S/o. Vinay Kumar Pal - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 229 of 2023
Decided On : 21-12-2023
HARASSMENT - Writ Application for Restraining Order - Sections 498A, 34 IPC; Sections 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC, which address cruelty and abetment of cruelty, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which prohibit dowry demands. The court interpreted these sections in the context of the petitioner’s claims of harassment and wrongful arrest despite an interim protection order. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial orders and the implications of police actions in light of these legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the State Bank of India, was accused by a female constable of sexual exploitation, leading to a marriage and subsequent divorce proceedings. Following the divorce, the constable filed a police case against him under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail and received interim protection from arrest, which was allegedly ignored by the police, resulting in his arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was arrested despite an existing order of no coercive action. However, it concluded that the police acted under the direction of their superiors and that the petitioner failed to provide proof of the interim order at the time of his arrest. The court noted the lack of clear evidence of collusion between the police and the complainant.
Issues: Whether the arrest of the petitioner was in violation of the interim protection order and whether the police acted in connivance with the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without clear evidence of a deliberate violation of the court's order, it could not find the investigating officer at fault. The responsibility to communicate the interim order lay with the petitioner and the prosecution, which was not fulfilled.
Final Decision: The writ application was disposed of, with the court stating that the petitioner could seek remedies in a competent court, as the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not appropriate for the relief sought.
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Since the serial number of parties in the respondent column have been incorrectly numbered, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the petition.
2. This writ application has been filed seeking a direction restraining respondent no. 6 from harassing the petitioner in the garb of Mahila P.S. Case No. 102 of 2022 and further to ensure a fair investigation in the matter as also to grant appropriate compensation to the petitioner and for grant of any other suitable relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the eyes of law.
Brief facts of the case
3. The petitioner is an employee of the State Bank of India at Exhibition Road Branch, Patna. It is his case that he came in contact with respondent no. 8, who was posted as a Female Constable in Patna District Force. They became good friends and got involved in a love affair. On 19.09.2020, the private respondent approached Mahila Police Station, Gardanibagh, Patna and lodged a complaint alleging that she has been sexually exploited by the petitioner on the pretext of marriage.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that on having been pressurized, he with an intention to move ahead in his life, married the private respondent on 11.11.2020, however, soon after the marriage, the differences started to arise and that led to filing of a Matrimonial Case bearing No. 1506 of 2021 by the petitioner seeking a decree of divorce.
5. It is stated that respondent no. 8 did not cooperate in the matrimonial case and with an intention to falsely implicate the petitioner, she lodged Mahila P.S. Case No. 102 of 2022, dated 16.08.2022, registered under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A copy of the F.I.R. has been brought on record as Annexure ‘1’ to the writ application.
6. It is stated that the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Patna, vide A.B.P. No. 7307 of 2022, in which he got interim protection by virtue of the order dated 14.09.2022, wherein the learned court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till next date. The court called for the case diary along with criminal antecedent of the petitioner, if any, from the Investigating Officer of the case as well as issued notice to the informant. The case was posted for further hearing on 11.10.2022.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that the interim protection was extended from time to time, which would be evident from the orders dated 11.10.2022 and 16.11.2022. On 16.11.2022, the learned court directed that no coercive step shall be taken till next date, which was fixed on 13.12.2022. It is stated that before the next date of hearing on 13.12.2022, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 in connivance with the private respondent no. 8 arrested the petitioner on 04.12.2022 and dragged him all the way from his house to Mahila Police Station while keeping him handcuffed. The petitioner has enclosed Annexure ‘4’ to the writ application, which is a photograph.
8. The bone of contention in the present writ application is that despite the petitioner producing the order granting interim relief to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Patna, the respondents were adamant and paid no heed to the same. The petitioner was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Patna on 05.12.2022 for purpose of remand, but after perusal of the records of the case, the learned Magistrate found that the interim order of no coercive step to be taken was available in the record, hence he was not remanded. It is one of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arrest of the petitioner was in deliberate violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 8 SSC 273. It is submitted that in this manner, the respondent no. 8 harassed the petiti
The court established that the failure to communicate a court order does not automatically imply wrongful arrest, and the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to demonstrate that the arrest was in ....
(1) A fit case to exercise the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.(2) Very entrustment of the investigation into the matter and continuing the ....
Law of bail deals with two complicating interests, i.e. societal interest to cure hazards of crime and to avoid repeating of the same and on the other hand principle of criminal jurisprudence referri....
An order of anticipatory bail should not be “blanket” in sense that it should not enable accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest.
The court affirmed that police can investigate non-cognizable offences alongside cognizable ones, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of complaints in family disputes.
The execution of a non-bailable warrant must be based on accurate identification to prevent wrongful detention, but actions taken in good faith under a valid warrant do not constitute an abuse of pow....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
