IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, JJ.
Vimal Kumar And Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020
Decided on : 28-01-2021.
Dowry Prohibition Act - Arrest Provisions - Section 498-A IPC - Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - 41(I)(b), 41 A Cr.P.C. - 170(I) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against them under sections 498-A IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners argued that the respondent demanded money for solemnizing the marriage and launched a malicious prosecution against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of 41(I)(b), 41 A Cr.P.C., and 170(I) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with relevant judgments, to emphasize the limitations on police arrest powers for offenses punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years. The court highlighted the need for police to satisfy specific conditions before making arrests and issued directions to ensure compliance with arrest provisions.
Issues: The issues involved the misuse of arrest powers by the police, compliance with arrest provisions, and the need to balance individual liberty and social order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the arrest provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure and issued directions to prevent the routine and mechanical arrest of individuals in cases punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, and the court issued directions to the police authorities to comply with the arrest provisions and balance individual liberty with social order.
JUDGMENT :
Gautam Chowdhary, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:
(II) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in case crime No. 824 of 2020, under sections 498-A IPC and section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah.
(III) issue any other writ order or direction In the like nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(IV) award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioners.
3. The brief facts of this case are that the marriage of daughter of respondent no. 4 namely Priyanka was fixed with the petitioner No. 1 by which on 7.6.2020 the Ring ceremony was held and during this period about 6.5 lacs rupees was given by the respondent no. 4 to the petitioners. It is further alleged that on 25.11.2020 all the petitioners demanded a Creta Car and stated if said demand could not be fulfilled then they would not solemnize the marriage.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage of daughter of respondent no. 4 was fixed with the petitioner no. 1 and after Ring ceremony respondent no. 4 with the ulterior motive, demanded money from the petitioners for solemnizing the marriage with her daughter with petitioner no. 1 and stated that if the same was not fulfilled then petitioners would be falsely dragged in a criminal case, present malicious prosecution has been launched by the respondent no. 4.
5. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the offences are punishable with incarceration below 7 years but the police of concerned police station is regularly visiting the house of petitioners under the influence of respondents No. 4. It is further submitted that under the provisions of Sections 204, S41(1)(b), S.41(1)(b)(ii)(e), S.41(a) of the Cr.P.C. police cannot arrest the petitioners without giving notice and without and without collecting any credible evidence against the petitioners the police can not arrest the accused.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the provisions embodied in sections 204, S.41(1)(b), S.41(1)(b)(ii)(e), S.41(a) of the Cr.P.C. the judgment of this Court in 2011 0 Supreme (All) 2785 (Shaukin Vs. State Of U.P. and Others) has been relied and has placed reliance on Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Vs. Union of India, Ministry of law and Justice and others passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015.
7. We proceed to explain the import and meaning of the amended provisions 41(I)(b) and 41A Cr.P.C., and to give some illustrations where accused could be arrested straightaway on the lodging of the FIR, and other illustrations where immediate arrests may not be needed, because we think that in many cases the police is still routinely proceeding to arrest accused persons even if they are involved in offences punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment, in contravention of the express terms of Section 41(I)(b) or 41 A Cr.P.C.
41. When police may arrest without warrant.--(I) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person------------
(a)---------------------
(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.