Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(UT) 3079
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J
Ankit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 105 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.K. Mandal
For the Respondents: Pratiroop Pandey
The definition of 'Police Officer' under the Motor Vehicles Act encompasses constables, affirming their authority to make arrests.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 202 - Interpretation of police officer and authority to arrest - The Court found that the constable is included within the definition of 'Police Officer' as it is governed by the broad interpretation of the law, allowing for their authority to effect an arrest under certain circumstances. (Paras 7, 14, 26)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 2(o) - Defines the 'officer in charge of a police station' and does not limit the authority of constables to act under applicable laws, affirming their competency to uphold the law at the scene of an incident. (Paras 15, 26)
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged Criminal Case No. 8059 of 2018 for alleged offenses under IPC Sections 332 and 353, where constables apprehended him for possible violations related to road safety and public order. The applicant contends that the constables lacked authority based on their classification.
Findings of Court:
The definition and authority of 'Police Officer' include constables, allowing them to make apprehensions during the commission of an offence.
Issues: Whether constables have the authority to apprehend individuals under the Motor Vehicles Act has been addressed thoroughly in the judgement.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reinforced that the definition of ‘Police Officer’ is inclusive of all ranks down to constables, thereby supporting the legality of their actions in apprehending the applicant.
Result: The application is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to criminal proceedings (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. authority of constables to make arrests (Para 3 , 4 , 18 , 21 , 26) |
| 3. definition and scope of a 'police officer' (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 23) |
| 4. court's conclusion on arrest authority and dismissal (Para 6 , 27) |
JUDGEMENT
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The applicant to the present C-482 Application has put a challenge to the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 8059 of 2018, State Vs. Ankit Kumar, which stood registered as a consequence of the culmination of the investigation being conducted by the Investigating Officer, into the set of allegations levelled in FIR, being FIR No. 557 st of 2018, dated 21 September, 2018, which was registered by Constable 49 T.P. Dinesh Kapari, for the alleged involvement of the present applicant for commission of the offence under Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC.
2. Consequence to the submission of the chargesheet, the cognizance has been taken by virtue of an th order dated 15 December, 2018, as it has been passed by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in the aforesaid Criminal Case No. 8059 of 2018, State Vs. Ankit Kumar.
3. There are multifarious arguments, which have been extended by the learned counsel for the applicant, and in order to better deal with, it is aptly required to be classified as:-
i. He submits, that the Constables, who had intercepted the present applicant on the date and place, which is mentioned in the FIR, since they being the “constables”, they would not be the “police officers” in view of the provisions contained under Section 202 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
ii. In that eventuality, he submits that once they are not the police officers, they could not have apprehended the present applicant, who was driving the motor cycle, being motor cycle bearing registration No. UA04B-2583
4. To deal with the aforesaid argument, reference to the provisions contained under Section 202 of the Motor Vehicles Act, becomes relevant. The provisions contained under Section 202 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it reads as under :
“202. Power to arrest without warrant.— (1) A police officer in uniform may arrest without warrant any person who in his presence commits an offence punishable under section 184 or section 185 or section 197:
Provided that any person so arrested in connection with an offence punishable under section 185 shall, within two hours of his arrest, be subjected to a medical examination referred to in sections 203 and 204 by a registered medical practitioner failing which he shall be released from custody.
[(2) A police officer in uniform may arrest without warrant any person, who has committed an offence under this Act, if such person refuses to give his name and address.]
(3) A police officer arresting without warrant the driver of a motor vehicle shall if the circumstances so require take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary disposal of the vehicle.”
5. It provides that the Police Officer “would be an authority competent to arrest without warrant any person, who is found to be engaged in commission of the offence under Sections 184, 185 and 197 of the Motor Vehicles Act”.
6. Prior to the dealing with the implications of the use of the word “Police Officer” under Section 202 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a person can be arrested by the Police Officer, by using the power under Sections 202 of Motor Vehicle Act. Section 184 of the Act, deals with driving dangerously and Section 185 deals with driving a vehicle in a drunken state or under an influence of drugs, whereas, Section 197 of the Act deals with taking vehicle without an authority.
7. Reverting back to the principle implications of the use of word “Police Officer” under Section 202 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has been attempted to be argued by the learned counsel for the applicant to challenge the proceedings, contending thereof, that the “Constables”, who are shown to
