$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 22^nd August, 2024 Date of Decision: 30^th August, 2024 + W.P.(CRL) 1974/2024 MAZHAR ULLAH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mujeeb Ur Rehman, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl) with Ms. Priyam Agarwal and Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya, Advs. with SI Jagdeep and Insp. Vikas PS Cyber Cell/S.W. CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeks the following prayers:-

“A. Pass an order quashing the arrest of the Petitioner as well as impugned orders dated 16.06.2024 & 30.06.2024 passed by Ld. Duty MM, Dwarka Courts Complex, South West Delhi allowing JC of the Petitioner in the case under FIR No. 33/2024 P.S. Cyber Police Station, South West Delhi u/s 419/420 of the IPC; and thereby direct to release the Petitioner and set him at liberty.

B. Pass any other or further order/s as may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The petition, which is in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus, has been Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR W.P.(CRL) 1974/2024 Page 1 of 16 preferred challenging the orders dated 16^th June 2024 and 30^th June 2024 passed by the ld. Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts Complex, South West Delhi, allowing the application seeking judicial custody of the Petitioner in the case FIR No. 33/2024, under Sections 419/420 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Cyber Police Station, South West Delhi.

3. It is pertinent to note here that although the prayer seeks setting aside of the order dated 30^th June 2024, the same has not been placed on record and has neither been adverted to during the course of the arguments by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 16^th June, 2024 passed by the ld. Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts Complex, South West Delhi was without any reason. It was submitted that the same was a cryptic order which reflected that there was no application of mind. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar &

Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273, in paragraph 11 has held and observed as under:-

“11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

11.1. 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;

11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

11.3. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR W.P.(CRL) 1974/2024 Page 2 of 16 detention;

11.4. The Magistrate while authorising 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 authorise detention;

11.5. 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;

11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. be served on the accused withi