Skip to main content

Supreme Court enforces guidelines for arrests in dowry cases

The Supreme Court has warned the police of departmental action and contempt proceedings if they do not follow the checklist in Criminal Procedure Code mandating them to weigh the need to arrest a person accused of dowry harassment.

A bench of Justices C K Prasad and P C Ghose said the police must follow the 'Dos and Don'ts' prescribed under Section 41 of CrPC before arresting a person in an offence punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment on being found guilty.

The checklist mandates that a person accused of such an offence can be arrested if the police officer is satisfied that it was necessary

1. To prevent such person from committing any further offence

2. For proper investigation of the case

3. To prevent the accused from causing disappearance of evidence

4. To prevent accused from tampering with evidence

5. To prevent the person from inducing, threatening or luring the witness to dissuade him/her from disclosing facts to police officer or the court

6. To prevent the accused from absconding

7. To secure his presence before the court during the hearing.

The bench said the law mandated the police officer to record reasons in writing why he came to the conclusion that arrest was necessary and that he had satisfied himself with each and every provision of the checklist.

Justice Prasad, writing the judgment for the bench, said, "In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve/What object will it achieve?

"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 under Section 41."

If the police arrest and produce a person before a magistrate, and if he finds that the arrest was in breach of the checklist, then he "is duty bound not to authorize further detention and release the accused", the bench said.

The court said the legislature had inserted Section 41 in CrPC to "avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on accused". This provision asks the police to issue a notice to the accused specifying the time and date for his appearance for purpose of investigation. If the accused complies with the notice and cooperates with the investigation, he would not be arrested.

The bench said if police scrupulously adhered to the mandate of Section 41, then "the wrong committed by 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 emphasize that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 CrPC for effecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued," it said.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-enforces-arrest-guideline-in-offences-attracting-seven-year-jail-term/articleshow/37732251.cms?intenttarget=no&utm_source=TOI_AShow_OBWidget&utm_medium=Int_Ref&utm_campaign=TOI_AShow

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.