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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf