The main legal point established in the judgment is that the police officer must have valid reasons to arrest a person without a warrant, and the Magistrate cannot issue warrants of arrest solely for the aid of the investigating officer.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482/483 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.150 dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure P-2) registered under Sections 406, 420 & 120-B IPC at Police Station Phase-I, District SAS Nagar, Mohali and the orders dated 26.03.2019, 26.04.2019, 30.05.2019, 18.07.2019 & 27.08.2019 whereby the warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner, as well as, the subsequent consequent orders.

2. At the outset, the counsel for the petitioner submits that for the time being, the petitioner does not press the present petition qua challenge to the FIR as such; and that he has been instructed by the petitioner, to restrict the present petition only qua challenge to the warrants issued by the Magistrate against the petitioner in the said FIR.

3. De hors any merits of the case qua the FIR, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the warrants have been issued by the Magistrate in a mechanical manner. The application moved by the police, seeking issuance of warrants from the Magistrate, does not reflect any reason for the same. Therefore, the learned Magistrate had no reason or occasion to exercise his discretion to decide whether the petitioner was evading his arrest or not. In such a situation, the exercise of discretion by the Magistrate stands vitiated, being in negation of law as is laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, (2000) 10 SCC, 438. Still further, it is contended that since, the police had not disclosed any reason even in their application, therefore, arrest of the petitioner would be in violation of the provisions of Section 41(l)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by the counsel that in the absence of any such reasons, the Magistrate could not have even authorized the police custody of the petitioner, in case of his arrest. Therefore, if the Magistrate could not have authorized police custody, due to absence of valid reasons then the Magistrate could not have even issued warrant authorizing arrest of the petitioner, as such.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Harbir Sandhu, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State and Mr. Arun Kumar Batra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant.

6. It is submitted by the counsels for the respondents that the petitioner is involved in a heinous crime of huge fraud. But, it is not disputed that the application moved by the investigating officer for obtaining the warrant from the Magistrate; does not contain any reason, and only this much has been written in the application that the petitioner is evading arrest. Still further, since the police was not able to arrest the petitioner despite repeated attempts and the raids at the known addresses of the petitioner, therefore, the investigating officer had rightly applied for the warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The Magistrate is not required to record any reasons for issuing warrants of arrest against an accused. Hence, the Magistrate has not committed any illegality in issuing warrants against the petitioner.

7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to have reference to the bare language of the provisions of Cr.P.C. which deals with arrest of a person without warrant, power of the Magistrate to authorize the detention of a person after he has been arrested by the police and also regarding power of the Magistrate to issue warrants against a person/accused of a non-bailable offence. Sections 41, 47, 48, 58, 70 to 73, 82, 87 & 89 of Cr.P.C. are reproduced below:

Chapter -V Arrest of Persons

41. When police may arrest without warrant.-

(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person-

[(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizable offence;

(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasona