1. The petitioner has come up before this Court seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for not following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and others set up an Agency in the name and style of “Alliance Expert Courier” to carry on courier business. They also appointed sufficient persons as agents on commission basis. Due to misunderstanding between the parties, in 2013, the petitioner resigned from the Partnership Firm, and one Mr. Khader Ibrahim took over the charge of the company along with one Kottairaj.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner started a new Partnership Firm in the name and style of “Non-Stop Courier” having his Head Office at Madurai. However, due to the transaction in the earlier Partnership Firm, one Mr. Kumar, a native of Tirunelveli and seven others, trespassed into the petitioner's company and created unnecessary problems, in spite of informing about the resignation of the petitioner from the said Firm. A complaint was given by Mr. Kumar stating that the petitioner had cheated a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on the promise that he would appoint him as Agent, however, he was not appointed. Based on the said complaint, FIR was lodged against the petitioner in Crime No.54 of 2014 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and thereafter, the petitioner was arrested. The case of the petitioner is that as per D.K. Basu's case, cited supra, the relatives of the petitioner should have been informed immediately about the arrest and the reason for arrest, and no such information was given to the relatives. Therefore, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that non-communication of the arrest of the petitioner, resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner, as he was not allowed to have proper legal assistance. Secondly he would point out the judgment of this Court in H.C.P.Nos.693 and 695 of 2013 dated 29.08.2013, wherein this Court deprecated the practice of informing the relatives over cell phones. Reference is also made to the letter issued by the Home Ministry, Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 07.02.2012, giving a clear direction to rectify the technical lapses subsequently committed by the authorities, with regard to communication of information of arrest to the relatives over cell phones. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondents should be punished.

5. Mr. P. Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that immediately after arrest, the petitioner's wife was informed over cell phone No.9524798373 and she rushed to the Police Station. Further, it is submitted that signature was obtained by the authorities from the detenu, endorsing the information given by the respondent Police to the petitioner's wife. Therefore, according to the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), no prejudice is caused to the petitioner.

6. Heard the parties and perused the records.

7. It is relevant to refer to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 and the same are extracted hereunder:

"35. We therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures:

(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.

(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person