Breaking ; No Automatic Arrest in 498-A Cases, SC Issues Strict guidelines to Police and Magistrates, Non Compliance will Attract Disciplinary & Contempt Proceedings [Read the Judgment]

The Supreme Court, has delivered a much awaited judgment by the common man. The judgment (Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr) has effectively rewritten the relationship between the police and public. The important verdict  arises from an appeal preferred by an husband who apprehended his arrest in a case under Section 498-A  of the Indian Penal Code, 1860   and  Section  4  of the Dowry Prohibition  Act,  1961.

While dealing with the case, the Court thought it fit to record the rampant  abuse of  498-A  of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, who delivered  the judgement, along with Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose has recorded the ground realities, according to the 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, 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 pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000  are  likely  to result in acquittal”

The Court in strong words possible has expressed its dissatisfaction as to how the power of arrest and detention is dealt with equally by Police and Magistrates. It records “. 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  authorizes 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 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  authorizing the detention and 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  authorizing 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”.

In order to prevent unnecessary arrest and causal and mechanical detention, the Court has issued following  directions :

a)      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.PC;

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

c)     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;

d)     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;

e)      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;

f)       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;

g)      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.

h)      Authorising  detention  without  recording  reasons  as  aforesaid  by   the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable  for  departmental  action  by the appropriate High Court.

i)        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.

j)        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 “

Read the Judgement here

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

*

  • shubham singh says:

    it is spefic that there should be a male investigation officer in section 498 of IPC

  • Satpalsingh Sandhu says:

    I need judgment copy of illegal speed breakers to be removed order by superem court

  • Sudarshan Jain says:

    Can anyone please provide me a copy of the judgement in which Uttarakhand High has awards 2 lakh Rs. Compensation to the victim In a Dog bitten case. Or the case no.
    The order was delivered in April 2015
    My Cell no. Is 9074783432

  • Dr.Yogesh Sharma says:

    This is very good and very necessary. Indian Constitution and Indian Penal Code have so many draconion acts. One of them is this one. Others are… Dowry Act, Domestic Violence Act, POSCOS, Rent Controll Act, SC & ST Act, Chakbandi Act, Land Ceiling Act , NGOs Acts, Article 370, Minority Civil Codes… etc., All must be scrapped.

  • Guest says:

    There is still no word on how to deal with women who file fabricated or exaggerated cases under 498A with the aim of harming innocent men and their families. There must be exemplary punishments for evil actions like false complaints.

  • Mahesh ramaling palle says:

    Ya, this is d Apex court. we is feel proud . These kind of judgement s will definitely balance d Indian Society n help to re build d value of Family.

  • manas mukhopadhyay, LL.B says:

    Good Observations …………………….right decision

  • kapil Mankare says:

    Good one supreme Court is always find out which laws are correctly implemented or how to implement it in our society becuease we people are always misuse of law hence it is very important to clear all things.

  • prafulla acharya says:

    Right decision

  • Adv.Mofidul Islam says:

    very nice but should not take undue advantage to comply with the order by the authority concern.

Top