Back
2011 (2) N.C.C. 826
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu
Criminal Appeal No. 1758 of 2011
RAGHUVANSH DEWANCHAND BHASIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 09.09.2011
(B) Non-bailable warrant — Issuance of — Such warrant of arrest cannot be issued mechanically, but only after recording satisfaction that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is warranted — Courts have to be extra-cautious and careful while directing issue of non-bailable warrant, else a wrongful detention would amount to denial of constitutional mandate envisaged in Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
(Paras 9 to 13)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Secs. 476, 70, 71 — Scope and ambit — Enumerated. (Para 21)
(D) Non-bailable warrants — Issuance of — Guidelines to be adopted — (a) All the High Court shall ensure that the Subordinate Courts use printed and machine numbered Form No. 2 for issuing warrant of arrest and each such form is duly accounted for — (b) Before authenticating, the court must ensure that complete particulars of the case are mentioned on the warrant — (c) The presiding Judge of the court (or responsible officer specially authorized for the purpose in case of High Courts) issuing the warrant should put his full and legible signatures on the process, also ensuring that Court seal bearing complete particulars of the Court is prominently endorsed thereon — (d) The Court must ensure that warrant is directed to a particular police officer (or authority) and, unless intended to be open-ended, it must be returnable whether executed or unexecuted, on or before the date specified therein — (e) Every Court must maintain a register (in the format given below), in which each warrant of arrest issued must be entered chronologically and the serial number of such entry reflected on the top right hand of the process — (f) No warrant of arrest shall be issued without being entered in the register mentioned above and the concerned court shall periodically check/monitor the same to confirm that every such process is always returned to the court with due report and placed on the record of the concerned case — (g) A register similar to the one in clause (e) supra shall be maintained at the concerned police station — The Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station shall ensure that each warrant of arrest issued by the Court, when received is duly entered in the said register and is formally entrusted to a responsible officer for execution — (h) Ordinarily, the Courts should not give a long time for return or execution of warrants, as experience has shown that warrants are prone to misuse if they remain in control of executing agencies for long — (i) On the date fixed for the return of the warrant, the Court must insist upon a compliance report on the action taken thereon by the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station or the Officer in-charge of the concerned agency — (j) The report on such warrants must be clear, cogent and legible and duly forwarded by a superior police officer, so as to facilitate fixing of responsibility in case of misuse — (k) In the event of warrant for execution beyond jurisdiction of the Court issuing it, procedure laid down in Sections 78 and 79 of the Code must be strictly and scrupulously followed; and — (l) In the event of cancellation of the arrest warrant by the Court, the order cancelling warrant shall be recorded in the case file and the register maintained — A copy thereof shall be sent to the concerned authority, requiring the process to be returned unexecuted forthwith — The date of receipt of the unexecuted warrant will be entered in the aforesaid registers — A copy of such order shall also be supplied to the accused. (Para 23)
¼v½ Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 32] 226] 21 & Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] /kkjk 324 & /kkjk 324 IPC ds rgr dk;Zjr vf/koDrk ds fo#) f'kdk;rh nkok nk;j fd;k x;k & xSj tekurh okjUV fuxZr fd;k x;k & vfHk;qDr tc M~;wVh eftLVªsV ds lEeq[k is'k fd;k x;k rks eqDr dj fn;k x;k & blds ckotwn vfHk;qDr iqfyl vfèkdkjh ls dg jgk Fkk fd okjUV fujLr dj fn;k x;k Fkk & vfHk;qDr }kjk ,sls iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds fo#) mfpr vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ vkSj mfpr izfrdj] {kfriwfrZ vkSj gtkZus dh ekax ,sls iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds gkFkksa ls csbTtrh gksus ds fy, vkSj mldh cqjh fu;r ds okLrs dh xbZ & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k fd iqfyl vf/kdkjh dks vko';d ekQh] vfHk;qDr ls] NqV~Vh ds fnu ,slk okjUV cuokus ds okLrs] ekaxuh pkfg, Fkh & ;g lkQ rkSj ls ,d ,slk dsl ik;k x;k tks fdlh ukxfjd dh Lora=rk esa vuko';d gLr{ksi djus dk Fkk & iqfyl vf/kdkjh dks vadu #- 2000@& gtkZuk vfHk;qDr dks Hkqxrku djus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;k & mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh iqf"V dh xbZA ¼izLrj 7] 14 ls 20½ ¼c½ xSj tekurh okjUV dk tkjh fd;k tkuk & fxj¶rkjh dk ,slk okjUV eSdsfudyh tkjh ugha fd;k tk ldrk cfYd larks"ktud fVIi.kh ntZ djds] fd dsl dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa vkSj rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fxj¶rkjh okafNr Fkh & U;k;ky; dks vfrfjDr lko/kkuh cjrus dh rc vko';drk gS tc og xSj tekurh okjUV fuxZr djs vU;Fkk xSj dkuwuh :i ls gokykr esa Mkyus ls laoS/kkfud vf/kdkj tks vuqPNsn 21 esa iznÙk fd;k x;k gS] ml ls bUdkj fd;k tkuk gksxkA ¼izLrj 9 ls 13½ ¼l½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 476] 70] 71 & foLrkj vkSj ifjf/k dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA ¼izLrj 21½ ¼n½ xSj tekurh okjUV dk fuxZr fd;k tkuk & vkSj mlesa fuEu ekxZn'kZu dk viuk;k tkuk & (a) lHkh mPp U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ;g lqfuf'pr fd;k tk,xk fd lHkh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;] Nis gq, vkSj e'khu ls uEcj Mkys gq, :i i= 2 dk iz;ksx fxj¶rkjh okjUV fuxZr djus esa djsa vkSj ,sls izR;sd :i i= dk bUækt fd;k tk, & (b) izek.khdj.k djus ls iwoZ U;k;ky; ;g lqfuf'pr dj ys fd okjUV ij dsl dk lEiw.kZ fooj.k ntZ dj fn;k x;k gS & (c) U;k;ky; ds fu/kkZfjr U;k;k/kh'k }kjk ¼vFkok mÙkjnk;h vf/kdkjh fo'ks"k :i ls bl mn~ns'; ds fy;s vf/kÑr mPp U;k;ky; ds dsl esa½ okjUV fuxZr djus okys ds }kjk vius iwjs vkSj i<+us yk;d gLrk{kj ml ij fd;s tkus pkfg, vkSj ;g Hkh fuf'pr fd;k tk, fd U;k;ky; dh eksgj ftlesa U;k;ky; dk lEiw.kZ fooj.k gks] fo'ks"k :i ls ml ij yxkbZ tk, & (d) U;k;ky; dks ;g Hkh lqfuf'pr djuk pkfg, fd okjUV fdlh [kkl iqfyl vf/kdkjh dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gS vFkok fdlh ,tsUlh dks] tc rd [kqyk gqvk uk dgk tk, rks ;g fuf'pr frfFk rd okilh ;ksX; gks] pkgs rkehy gqvk gks vFkok fcu rkehy fd;k gqvk gks & (e) izR;sd U;k;ky; esa ,d iaftdk j[kh tkuh pkfg, ftl esa izR;sd fuxZr fd;k gqvk okjUV uEcjokj ntZ fd;k tk, vkSj ;g la[;k okjUV ij nk;ha vksj vafdr dh tk, & (f) dksbZ Hkh fxj¶rkjh okjUV fcuk mDr iaftdk esa ntZ fd;s fuxZr ugha fd;k tk,xk vkSj lEcfU/kr U;k;ky; }kjk mldh le; le; ij tkap dh tk,xh vkSj og ;g lqfuf'pr djsxh fd izR;sd okjUV okafNr fjiksVZ ds lkFk U;k;ky; esa okfil vk;k gS vkSj og izR;sd lEcfU/kr i=koyh esa uRFkh dj fn;k tkrk gS & (g) ,d jftLVj mDr Dykt (e) tSlk izR;sd iqfyl LVs'ku esa Hkh j[kk tk,xk ml iqfyl LVs'ku dk lEcfU/kr vf/kdkjh ;g lqfuf'pr djsxk fd U;k;ky; }kjk fuxZr izR;sd okjUV tc izkIr gqvk iaftdk esa ntZ fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj fdlh mÙkjnk;h O;fDr dks rkehy gsrq fn;k x;k Fkk & (h) lkekU;r;k U;k;ky; }kjk okjUV dh okilh vFkok rkehy ds okLrs vf/kd le; ugha fn;k tkuk pkfg, & tSlk fd vuqHko dgrk gS fd okjUV dk ml le; nq#i;ksx fd;k tkrk gS ;fn os yEcs le; rd rkehy djus okys vf/kdkjh ds ikl jgrk gS & (i) okilh ds okLrs fu;r frfFk ij U;k;ky; }kjk rkehy ds okLrs ;g tksj nsuk pkfg, fd lEcfU/kr iqfyl vf/kdkjh vFkok rkehy djus okyh ,tsUlh fu;r le; ij gh okfil djs & (j) ,sls okjUV ij fjiksVZ Li"V gksuh pkfg, vkSj i<+us ;ksX; gksuh pkfg, vkSj mPp iqfyl vf/kdkjh }kjk vxzlkfjr gksuh pkfg, ftlls nq#i;ksx gksus dh n'kk esa mÙkjnkf;Ro fuf'pr fd;k tk lds & (k) rkehy ds okLrs U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ls ckgj dk okjUV izkIr gksus ij /kkjk 78 o 79 CrPC esa mfYyf[kr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj l[rh ls dk;Zokgh dh tkuh visf{kr gS & (l) fxj¶rkjh okjUV ds fujLr gks tkus dh n'kk esa] fujLr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k dsl dh i=koyh esa ntZ fd;k tk,xk vkSj ml jftLVj esa Hkh ntZ fd;k tk,xk tks bl mn~ns'; ds okLrs j[kk x;k gS & ml dh ,d izfrfyfi lEcfU/kr vf/kdkjh dks Hksth tk,xh tks fcuk rkehy ds okfil eaxkuk pkg jgk Fkk & fcuk rkehy ds okjUV dh izkfIr dh jlhn dh frfFk mijksDr iaftdkvksa esa ntZ dh tk,xh & ,sls vkns'k dh ,d izfr vfHk;qDr dks Hkh nh tk,xhA ¼izLrj 23½
D.K. Jain, J. — Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th November 2007, rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in CRL. W.P. No. 1086/2002. By the impugned judgment, while allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant, alleging harassment on account of his arrest on the strength of a non-bailable warrant, which had been cancelled, the High Court has directed the delinquent police officer to pay by way of costs to the appellant an amount of Rs. 2,000/- from his own account.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts material for adjudication of the present case, may be stated thus :
Some time in the year 2000, one, Mr. Prem Harchandrai filed a complaint, being C.C. No. 163/P/2000, against the appellant, a practicing Advocate, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”), in relation to some incident alleged to have taken place in the ‘Radio Club’ at Mumbai, considered to be a club for the elite. When at a preliminary stage, the case came up for hearing before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 7th August, 2002, finding the appellant to be absent, the Court issued a non-bailable warrant against him returnable on 31st October, 2002. The warrant was forwarded to the Colaba Police Station for execution. However, on 12th August, 2002, on appellant’s putting in an appearance before the Court, the warrant was cancelled.
4. On 15th August, 2002, the complainant approached the Colaba Police Station and insisted on the arrest of the appellant in pursuance of the said non-bailable warrant. Thereupon, respondent No.2, who at that point of time was posted as an Inspector of Police at the Colaba Police Station, directed a constable to accompany the complainant, and execute the warrant. When the appellant was sought to be arrested, he informed the constable that the said warrant had already been cancelled. However, as he could not produce any documentary evidence relating to cancellation of warrant, the appellant was arrested before a public gathering which had assembled at the Radio Club, in connection with the Independence day celebrations. He was produced before the duty Magistrate at about 2 P.M., the same day. The Magistrate directed the release of the appellant. It appears that the appellant obtained the necessary confirmation about cancellation of the warrant on the next day i.e. 16th August 2002 and produced the same before respondent No.2 on the same day. Alleging malafides and humiliation at the hands of respondent No.2, in collusion with the complainant, the appellant approached the High Court, inter-alia, praying for suitable disciplinary action against respondent No.2; adequate compensation; damages and costs by the said respondent from his own pocket.
5. As aforesaid, the High Court, vide impugned judgment has allowed the writ petition, inter alia, observing thus:
“We therefore, find that there was no justification for issuance of non-bailable warrant on 7th August, 2002 merely because the petitioner had remained absent in Criminal Case No. 163/P/2000 (sic) by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Magistrate could have issued either a notice or a bailable warrant depending upon the facts revealed from the records. Once the warrant was cancelled on 12th August, 2002, it was necessary for the Court to immediately communicate the same to the concerned Police authority so that no inconvenience could have been caused to the person against whom the warrant was initially issued. Once the warrant was sought to be executed on holiday and the concerned police officer was categorically informed that the warrant had already been cancelled and the police officer being fully aware of the circumstances and nature of the case in which warrant had been issued, it was necessary for the police officer to ascertain and to find out whether the warrant which was sought to be executed was still enforceable or had already b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
