Saturday, July 5, 2014

No automatic arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered

Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1277  OF 2014
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9127 of 2013)

ARNESH KUMAR ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.         .... RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad:

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter called as IPC) and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.  The maximum sentence
provided under Section 498-A IPC is imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and
fine whereas the maximum sentence provided under
Page 2
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is two
years and with fine.
Petitioner   happens   to   be   the   husband   of
respondent no.2 Sweta Kiran.  The marriage between
them was solemnized on 1st  July, 2007. His attempt
to secure anticipatory bail has failed and hence
he has knocked the door of this Court by way of
this Special Leave Petition.
Leave granted.
In sum and substance, allegation levelled by
the wife against the appellant is that demand of
Rupees eight lacs, a maruti car, an          air-conditioner, television set etc. was made by her
mother-in-law and father-in-law and when this fact
was   brought   to   the   appellant’s   notice,   he
supported   his   mother   and   threatened   to   marry
another woman.  It has been alleged that she was
2
Page 3
driven out of the matrimonial home due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry.
Denying   these   allegations,   the   appellant
preferred   an   application   for   anticipatory   bail
which was earlier rejected by the learned Sessions
Judge and thereafter by the High Court.
There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial
disputes   in   recent   years.     The   institution   of
marriage   is   greatly   revered   in   this   country.
Section   498-A   of   the   IPC   was   introduced   with
avowed object to combat the menace of harassment
to a woman at the hands of her husband and his
relatives.     The   fact   that   Section   498-A   is   a
cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a
dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that
are   used   as   weapons   rather   than   shield   by
disgruntled wives.  The simplest way to harass is
to   get   the   husband   and   his   relatives   arrested
under this provision.  In a quite number of cases,
3
Page 4
bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the
husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades
are arrested.  “Crime in India 2012  Statistics”
published   by   National   Crime   Records   Bureau,
Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762
persons all over India during the year 2012 for
offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more
than the year 2011.   Nearly a quarter of those
arrested under this provision in 2012 were women
i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters
of the husbands were liberally included in their
arrest net.   Its share is 6% out of the total
persons arrested under the crimes committed under
Indian Penal Code.  It accounts for 4.5% of total
crimes committed under different sections of penal
code, more than any other crimes excepting theft
and hurt.   The rate of charge-sheeting in cases
under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while
the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest
across all heads.  As many as 3,72,706 cases are
4
Page 5
pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly
3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.  
Arrest   brings   humiliation,   curtails   freedom
and cast scars forever.   Law makers know it so
also the police.   There is a battle between the
law makers and the police and it seems that police
has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and
embodied in the Cr.PC.  It has not come out of its
colonial   image   despite   six   decades   of
independence, it is largely considered as a tool
of   harassment,   oppression   and   surely   not
considered   a   friend   of   public.     The   need   for
caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest
has been emphasized time and again by Courts but
has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest
greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the
failure of the Magistracy to check it.  Not only
this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative
sources of police corruption.   The attitude to
arrest first and then proceed with the rest is
5
Page 6
despicable.   It has become a handy tool to the
police officers who lack sensitivity or act with
oblique motive.
Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this
Court in a large number of judgments emphasized
the need to maintain a balance between individual
liberty and societal order while exercising the
power of arrest.   Police officers make arrest as
they believe that they possess the power to do so.
As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation
and casts scars forever, we feel differently.  We
believe   that   no   arrest   should   be   made   only
because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable
and therefore,  lawful for the police officers to
do so.  The existence of the power to arrest is
one thing, the justification for the exercise of
it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest,
the police officers must be able to justify the
reasons   thereof.     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
6
Page 7
prudent and wise for a police officer that no
arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction
reached   after   some   investigation   as   to   the
genuineness of the allegation. Despite this legal
position,   the   Legislature   did   not   find   any
improvement.     Numbers   of   arrest   have   not
decreased.     Ultimately,   the   Parliament   had   to
intervene and on the recommendation of the 177th
Report of the Law Commission submitted in the year
2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(for short ‘Cr.PC), in the present form came to be
enacted.   It is interesting to note that such a
recommendation was made by the Law Commission in
its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as back in the
year   1994.     The   value   of   the   proportionality
permeates the amendment relating to arrest.   As
the offence with which we are concerned in the
present appeal, provides for a maximum punishment
of imprisonment which may extend to seven years
and   fine,   Section   41(1)(b),   Cr.PC   which   is
relevant for the purpose reads as follows:
7
Page 8
“41.   When   police   may   arrest   without
warrant.-(1) Any police officer may without
an   order   from   a   Magistrate   and   without   a
warrant, arrest any person –
(a)x  x  x   x  x  x
(b)against   whom   a   reasonable   complaint
has   been   made,   or   credible   information
has   been   received,   or   a   reasonable
suspicion exists that he has committed a
cognizable   offence   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,
if   the   following   conditions   are
satisfied, namely :-(i) x x x x x
(ii)   the   police   officer   is   satisfied
that such arrest is necessary –
(a) to   prevent   such   person   from
committing any further offence; or
(b) for   proper   investigation   of   the
offence; or
(c) to prevent such person from causing
the   evidence   of   the   offence   to
disappear   or   tampering   with   such
evidence in any manner; or
(d) to prevent such person from making
any inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to the police officer;
or
(e) as unless such person is arrested,
his presence in the Court whenever
required cannot be ensured,
8
Page 9

and the police officer shall record while
making such arrest, his reasons in writing:
Provided that a police officer shall, in
all cases where the arrest of a person is
not required under the provisions of this
sub-section, record the reasons in writing
for not making the arrest.
X  x  x  x  x  x
From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision,
it is evident that a person accused of offence
punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may be less than seven years or which may extend
to seven years with or without fine, cannot be
arrested   by   the   police   officer   only   on   its
satisfaction that such person had committed the
offence punishable as aforesaid.  Police officer
before arrest, in such cases has to be further
satisfied   that   such   arrest   is   necessary   to
prevent such person from committing any further
offence;   or   for   proper   investigation   of   the
case; or to prevent the accused from causing the
9
Page 10
evidence   of   the   offence   to   disappear;   or
tampering with such evidence in any manner; or
to   prevent   such   person   from   making   any
inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or the police officer; or unless such
accused person is arrested, his presence in the
court   whenever   required   cannot   be   ensured.
These are the conclusions, which one may reach
based on facts.  Law mandates the police officer
to state the facts and record the reasons in
writing which led him to come to a conclusion
covered   by   any   of   the   provisions   aforesaid,
while making such arrest.  Law further requires
the police officers to record the reasons in
writing for not making the arrest.  In pith and
core, the police office before arrest must put a
question to himself, why arrest?  Is it really
required?   What purpose it will serve?   What
object it will achieve?  It is only after these
questions are addressed and one or the other
10
Page 11
conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the
power of arrest needs to be exercised.  In fine,
before arrest first the police officers should
have   reason   to   believe   on   the   basis   of
information and material that the accused has
committed the offence.   Apart from this, the
police officer has to be satisfied further that
the arrest is necessary for one or the more
purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of
clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.PC.
An   accused   arrested   without   warrant   by
the police has the constitutional right under
Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and
Section   57,   Cr.PC   to   be   produced   before   the
Magistrate without unnecessary delay and in no
circumstances beyond 24 hours excluding the time
necessary for the journey.  During the course of
investigation of a case, an accused can be kept
in detention beyond a period of 24 hours only
when   it   is   authorised   by   the   Magistrate   in
11
Page 12
exercise of power under Section 167 Cr.PC.  The
power to authorise detention is a very solemn
function.  It affects the liberty and freedom of
citizens and needs to be exercised with great
care and caution. Our experience tells us that
it   is   not   exercised   with   the   seriousness   it
deserves. In many of the cases, detention is
authorised   in   a   routine,   casual   and   cavalier
manner.     Before   a   Magistrate   authorises
detention under Section 167, Cr.PC, he has to be
first satisfied that the arrest made is legal
and   in   accordance   with   law   and   all   the
constitutional rights of the person arrested is
satisfied.  If the arrest effected by the police
officer   does   not   satisfy   the   requirements   of
Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound
not   to   authorise   his   further   detention   and
release the accused.   In other words, when an
accused is produced before the Magistrate,  the
police officer effecting the arrest is required
to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons
12
Page 13
and   its   conclusions   for   arrest   and   the
Magistrate   in   turn   is   to   be   satisfied   that
condition precedent for arrest under Section 41
Cr.PC   has   been   satisfied   and   it   is   only
thereafter that he will authorise the detention
of   an   accused.     The   Magistrate   before
authorising   detention   will   record   its   own
satisfaction, may be in brief but   the said
satisfaction must reflect from its order.   It
shall never be based upon the ipse dixit of the
police officer, for example, in case the police
officer   considers   the   arrest   necessary   to
prevent such person from committing any further
offence or for proper investigation of the case
or for preventing an accused from tampering with
evidence or making inducement etc., the police
officer   shall   furnish   to   the   Magistrate   the
facts, the reasons and materials on the basis of
which   the   police   officer   had   reached   its
conclusion.     Those   shall   be   perused   by   the
Magistrate while authorising the detention and
13
Page 14
only after recording its satisfaction in writing
that the Magistrate will authorise the detention
of the accused.   In fine, when a suspect is
arrested and produced before a Magistrate for
authorising   detention,   the   Magistrate   has   to
address the question whether specific reasons
have been recorded for arrest and if so, prima
facie those reasons are relevant and secondly a
reasonable conclusion could at all be reached by
the   police   officer   that   one   or   the   other
conditions stated above are attracted.  To this
limited extent the Magistrate will make judicial
scrutiny.
Another provision i.e. Section 41A Cr.PC
aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of
arrest looming large on accused requires to be
vitalised.   Section 41A as inserted by Section
6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 2008(Act 5 of 2009), which is relevant in
the context reads as follows:
14
Page 15
“41A.   Notice   of   appearance   before
police   officer.-(1)   The   police
officer  shall,  in  all  cases  where
the   arrest   of   a   person   is   not
required   under   the   provisions   of
sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue
a   notice   directing   the   person
against whom a reasonable complaint
has   been   made,   or   credible
information has been received, or a
reasonable suspicion exists that he
has committed a cognizable offence,
to   appear   before   him   or   at   such
other place as may be specified in
the notice.
(2) Where such a notice is issued to
any person, it shall be the duty of
that person to comply with the terms
of the notice.
(3) Where such person complies and
continues to comply with the notice,
he shall not be arrested in respect
of the offence referred to in the
notice   unless,   for   reasons   to   be
recorded, the police officer is of
the   opinion   that   he   ought   to   be
arrested.
(4) Where such person, at any time,
fails to comply with the terms of
the   notice   or   is   unwilling   to
identify himself, the police officer
may, subject to such orders as may
have   been   passed   by   a   competent
Court in this behalf, arrest him for
the   offence   mentioned   in   the
notice.”
15
Page 16
Aforesaid provision makes it clear that
in all cases where the arrest of a person is not
required under Section 41(1), Cr.PC, the police
officer is required to issue notice directing
the accused to appear before him at a specified
place and time.  Law obliges such an accused to
appear before the police officer and it further
mandates that if such an accused complies with
the terms of notice he shall not be arrested,
unless for reasons to be recorded, the police
office is of the opinion that the arrest is
necessary.   At this stage also, the condition
precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section
41 Cr.PC has to be complied and shall be subject
to   the   same   scrutiny   by   the   Magistrate   as
aforesaid. 
We   are   of   the   opinion   that   if   the
provisions of Section 41, Cr.PC which authorises
the police officer to arrest an accused without
an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant
16
Page 17
are scrupulously enforced, the wrong committed
by   the   police   officers   intentionally   or
unwittingly would be reversed and the number of
cases   which   come   to   the   Court   for   grant   of
anticipatory bail will substantially reduce.  We
would like to emphasise that the practice of
mechanically reproducing in the case diary all
or most of the reasons contained in Section 41
Cr.PC for effecting arrest be discouraged and
discontinued.
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:
(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
17
Page 18
parameters   laid   down   above   flowing   from
Section 41, Cr.PC;
(2) All   police   officers   be   provided   with   a
check list containing specified sub-clauses
under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
(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
detention;
(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;
(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be
forwarded   to   the   Magistrate   within   two
weeks from the date of the institution of
18
Page 19
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;
(6) 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;
(7) 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. 
(8) Authorising   detention   without   recording
reasons   as   aforesaid   by   the   judicial
19
Page 20
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.
We direct that a copy of this judgment be
forwarded to the Chief Secretaries as also the
Director Generals of Police of all the State
Governments and the Union Territories and the
Registrar General of all the High Courts for
onward   transmission   and   ensuring   its
compliance.
20
Page 21
By order dated 31st of October, 2013, this
Court   had   granted   provisional   bail   to   the
appellant on certain conditions. We make this
order absolute.
In   the   result,   we   allow   this   appeal,
making our aforesaid order dated 31st October,
2013 absolute; with the directions aforesaid.
   ………………………………………………………………J
   (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
   ………………………………………………………………J
                 (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
NEW DELHI,
July 2, 2014.
21

No comments: