The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for scrupulous enforcement of the provisions of Section 41 and Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to avoid unnecessary arrest and to ensure that the power of arrest is exercised with caution and justification.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Criminal Original Petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.

2. In view of the same, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the respondent police is to take note of the position that arrest of accused is not to be resorted to as a matter of course. Again in the event of accused persons being produced before them, the jurisdictional Magistrate is required not to effect remand in a mechanical manner. The clear dictum of the Honourable Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 3 MLJ (Crl) (SC), is to be followed both by the respondent police as also the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. For ready reference, the judgment referred to is reproduced hereunder:

"1. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after called as IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The maximum sentence provided under Section 498- A IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine whereas the maximum sentence provided under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is two years and with fine.

2. Petitioner happens to be the husband of respondent no. 2 Sweta Kiran. The marriage between them was solemnized on 1st July, 2007. His attempt to secure anticipatory bail has failed and hence he has knocked the door of this Court by way of this Special Leave Petition."

3. Leave granted.

4. In sum and substance, allegation levelled by the wife against the appellant is that demand of air-Rupees eight lacs, a maruti car, an conditioner, television set etc. was made by her mother-in-law and father-in-law and when this fact was brought to the appellants notice, he supported his mother and threatened to marry another woman. It has been alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry.

5. Denying these allegations, the appellant preferred an application for anticipatory bail which was earlier rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter by the High Court.

6. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. ?Crime in India 2012 Statistics” published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-Aof the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.

7. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers