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...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.