The main legal point established is that arrests of women under exceptional circumstances may be justified even without prior permission from the Judicial Magistrate, and the need for guidelines for electronic/digital sanction of arrests in urgent situations.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioner and further direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take disciplinary action against the concerned officers in a timely manner.)

The petitioner is a journalist. She is aggrieved by her arrest by the 4th respondent, the Inspector of Police, B-15 Rathinapuri Police Station, on 25.09.2012 for offences under Section 75(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1988, and Sections 506(1) and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.379 of 2012 based on the complaint of M.G.J.Ramkumar (in short “complainant”).

2. The complainant is a member of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). He had claimed to have received a pamphlet from the petitioner that contained defamatory observations about the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. He alleged that the petitioner was distributing the same among the public, right outside the AIADMK Head office at Sivanandha Colony, Coimbatore.

3. The complainant further alleged that when he questioned her about the propriety of her actions, the petitioner threatened him with dire consequences and continued indulging in the distribution. She was arrested on 25.09.2012 at around 10.00 p.m. Though she claims that the 4th respondent had physically touched her shoulder when he arrested her, that allegation is not pursued in the hearing before me.

4. The petitioner was, admittedly, produced before Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore at 1.00 a.m. and remanded to judicial custody in the Central prison. She was incarcerated for two days and released on bail thereafter.

5. The respondents point out that in the remand order dated 26.09.2012, there is a specific noting by Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore that there were no complaints that were raised as against the police and they would thus urge that all the grievances expressed in the Writ Petition are only an afterthought. A charge sheet was filed on 07.10.2014 in C.C.No.809 of 2014 and judgment was passed in the Criminal case on 02.03.2019 acquitting the petitioner of all the charges alleged.

6. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought a mandamus directing the respondents to compensate her by paying a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs. She further seeks a direction to R1 to R3, being the State, the Director General of Police/DGP/R2 and the Commissioner of Police/CP/R3 to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned officers in a timely manner.

7. The second limb of the prayer is premised upon the position that her arrest is illegal and in this regard, petitioner relies on Section 46(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short -Cr.P.C.-). The provisions of Section 46 deal with the procedure to be followed in making an arrest. Section 46 places an absolute bar on the arrest of women before sunrise and after sunset, except under exceptional circumstances. Where such exceptional circumstances exist or arise, the arrest shall be carried out, by a woman police officer, or in the presence of a woman police officer, and only after making a written report and obtaining prior permission of a Judicial Magistrate of first class within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed or the arrest is to be made.

8. The first allegation of the petitioner is that there was no woman police officer present. This is found to be factually incorrect insofar as the respondents have, in their counter, specifically referred to the assistance provided by Grade I police constable (woman) 1512 Shanthi Priya, who had accompanied Parthiban, Inspector of Police, Investigating Officer, B15 Rathinapuri Police Station for the entirety of the arrest and thereafter. The petitioner does not very seriously pursue this argument after the aforesaid details have been produced.

9. The second argument is premised on the police passport provided. It contains the time of exit of the two