IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, BRIJ RAJ SINGH, JJ.
Dinesh Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Up And Others - Respondents
Criminal MISC. Writ Petition No. 12485 Of 2024
Decided On : 07-08-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - FIR under Sections 406, 419, 420, 504 & 506 IPC - Guidelines for arresting a person established in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, reiterated in MD. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand - Directions to police regarding arrest and detention of accused to prevent unnecessary arrests. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7)
(B) Writ Petition - The petitioner challenges the legality of the FIR, asserting it arises from a dispute between parties, with offences punishable under seven years or less. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contests the FIR registered under IPC sections, claiming it is a result of a dispute. The Supreme Court guidelines aim to prevent arbitrary arrests in such cases.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner's freedom is protected, contingent upon cooperation with the investigation, and the I.O. must adhere to established guidelines for arrest.
Issues: The main issue is the legality of the FIR and the necessity of arrest under the guidelines set forth in previous judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes adherence to guidelines from Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam to ensure fair treatment of the accused.
Result: Writ petition disposed off.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 28.06.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0484 of 2024, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Banda.
3. Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present FIR is an outcome of dispute between the parties. The offences are punishable under 7 years or less than 7 years.
4. The Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 has laid down guidelines for arresting a person, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:-
All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.;
All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;
The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.
We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine."
5. In the recent judgment in the case of MD. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. (S) 2207 of 2023 decided on 31.07.2023, the Apex Court has reiterated the guidelines given in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).
6. Taking into account the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case and the in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and reiterated in the case of MD. Asfak Alam (supra), the freedom of the petitioner is protected, provided if the I.O. of the case gives notice to him as provided under Sections 41 and 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and summon the petitioner in this case, petitioners are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the investigation.
7. It is made clear that if some credible material is brought on record during investigation against the petitioner, then
The court reinforced guidelines for arresting individuals in cases with potential sentences of seven years or less, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural safeguards.
Arrest of accused – Simply because Police have power to make arrest does not mean that arrest should be made rather power of arrest should be exercised only as a necessity given paramountcy of libert....
S. 41 Cr.P.C - Investigating Officer is required to satisfy himself that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C.
Arrest and detention – No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person – It would be prudent and wise for a Police officer that no arr....
The judgment establishes that police must justify arrests and follow legal procedures, particularly in non-bailable offenses, to protect individual liberties.
The court ruled that detention without prior FIR is illegal; however, compliance with arrest protocols established in the Arnesh Kumar case must be followed, and failure to challenge remand limits cl....
The court emphasized adherence to guidelines for arrest, ensuring that police do not arrest without necessity and that judicial authorization requires proper justification.
Arrest requires clear individual justification; collective reasoning violates procedural safeguards and renders the arrest illegal.
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.