Preventive detention under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. must be justified by clear evidence of imminent threat; arbitrary arrests violate constitutional rights.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 13.06.2020 passed by the ACP-cum-Executive Magistrate, Jodhpur, as well as the order dated 03.12.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Appeal No. 203/2020.

2. The brief facts of the present case is that the petitioner, a law student, is a relative of one Dinesh Kumar, who was embroiled in a matrimonial dispute with his wife, Smt. Meenaxi. The said dispute led to a police complaint by Smt. Meenaxi against her husband. Following standard protocol, both parties were summoned for counseling before the Mahila Suraksha Salah Kendra on 12.06.2020.

3. During the counseling session, the petitioner, while accompanying his relative, allegedly raised his voice. Merely for this reason, he was apprehended by the police and detained under Sections 107 and 151 of the Cr.P.C. He was thereafter produced before the Executive Magistrate on 13.06.2020. However, the arrest and detention of the petitioner were wholly unjustified, arbitrary, and in blatant disregard of legal principles.

4. The petitioner contends that his illegal detention and arrest by the police were in clear violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The petitioner was falsely implicated and detained in a revengeful manner for lodging a complaint against a Women's Counselling Centre employee on the Rajasthan Sampark Portal. The entire sequence of events, demonstrates abuse of power by the police. The petitioner argues that his arrest was made without reasonable justification, as emphasized in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994 AIR 1349), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that arrest cannot be made in a routine manner without due investigation and necessity. The petitioner further relies on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 AIR 604), which outlines instances where criminal proceedings should be quashed due to malafide intent. He also cites Kishor v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition No. 183/2014, Bombay HC), Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. Govt of NCT of Delhi (W.P. (C) No. 3851/2023, Delhi HC), Shiv Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc W.P. No. 16386/2020, Allahabad HC)and Anand Mahadevan v. State of Kerala (Crl. MC No. 1940/2023, Kerala HC), all of which emphasize the need for fair investigation, protection against abuse of police power, and the importance of upholding constitutional rights. The petitioner, therefore, prays for the quashing of proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 CrPC, a declaration of his arrest as illegal, and compensation for the violation of his rights.

5. I have heard the petitioner, who appeared in person, as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and have carefully examined the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The order dated 13.06.2020 passed by the Executive Magistrate is a half-printed, half-written proforma, which, on its face, exhibits non-application of mind. The fundamental requirement under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. is the existence of a reasonable apprehension that a person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquility. However, in the present case, there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner was about to commit any cognizable offence.

7. Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are preventive provisions designed to maintain public order and tranquility. Section 107 Cr.P.C. empowers the Executive Magistrate to take preventive action when there is a likelihood of a breach of peace, whereas Section 151 Cr.P.C. permits the police to arrest a person without a warrant when it is necessary to prevent the commission of a cognizable offence. However, these provisions cannot be invoked arbitrarily or as a tool of harassment, as they operate within a legal framework that demands strict compliance with constitutional safeguards and procedural fairness.

8. In Istkar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Crimi