You are on page 1of 25

WWW.LIVELAW.

IN
902_wp_1252_2015

CRIMINALWRITPETITIONNO.1252OF2015

C
ou

1.BharatDevdanSalvi
Age27years,Occ:Business,
res.atSaritaSangamApartment,
Kasarwadi,Pune.

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION

ig
h

2.Smt.TeressaDevdanSalvi,
Age48years,Occ:Household,
R/at.SaritaSangamApartment,
Kasarwadi,Pune

3.MaryAjayKumawat
Age29years,Occ:Doctor,
res.atMan,Hinjewadi,
Pune

om

ba
y

4.ShriAjayGovindKumawat
Age34years,Occ:Doctor,
res.atMan,Hindewadi,
Pune.
5.ShriAnnasahebShankarJadhav
Age47years,Occ:Agriculturist,
Res.atNewasa,Ahmednagar
6.ShriMadhukarMotiramSalvi,
Age52years,
Res.atNewasa,Ahmednagar
7.Sou.ParidhanMadhukarSalvi,
Age52years,Occ:Household,
Res.atNewasa,Ahmednagar

..Petitioners
(Org.Accused)

v/s.

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

1/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:30 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
1.TheStateofMaharashtra
throughSeniorPoliceInspector,
BhosariPoliceStation,
Bhosari,Pune.

C
ou

2.MissLuisaPetarasJadhav,
Ageadult,Occ:Household,
res.ofNyayNagar,GalliNo.8,
GharNo.444,GarkhedaParisar,
Aurangabad

rt

902_wp_1252_2015

..Respondents

ig
h

Ms.KshitijaG.SarangiforthePetitioner.
Mr.S.S.Shinde, PP a/w. Mrs. S.V.Sonawane, APP for the
Respondent/State.
Mr.SatyavratJoshifortheRespondentNo.2.

ba
y

CORAM:RANJITMORE&
SMT.ANUJAPRABHUDESSAI,JJ.
DateofReservingtheorder:17thJuly,2015
DateofPronouncement:20thJanuary,2016

om

JUDGMENT(PerAnujaPrabhudessai,J.):
Rule. Rulemadereturnableforthwithwiththeconsentof

theparties.

2.

Thisisapetitionfiledunderarticle226oftheconstitution

r/wsection482oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureforquashingthe
C.R.No.46of2015registeredwithBhosariPoliceStation,Pune,forthe
offencespunishableundersections376and417r/w.34oftheIPC.

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

2/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:30 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

3.

The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are as

rt

under:

C
ou

TheRespondentNo.2whowastomarrythePetitionerNo.1
hadlodgedtheFIRdated15.2.2015allegingthaton9.12.2014,the
PetitionerNo.1hadsexualintercoursewithheragainstherwilland
without her consent. The Respondent No.2 further alleged that

ig
h

subsequentlythePetitionerNo.1andhisfamilymemberscalledoffthe

marriageandtherebycheatedher.

4.

Ms.KshitijaSarangi,thelearnedcounselforthePetitionershas

ba
y

submittedthattheFIRdoesnotdiscloseoffenceundersection375or
415IPC.Shehassubmittedthatthemarriagewascalledoffinviewof
the lack of compatibility between the Petitioner No.1 and the

om

RespondentNo.2.ShehasfurthersubmittedthatthePetitionerNos.2
to7beingthefamilymembersofthePetitionerNo.1werepresentat

the time of finalising the marriage and they are not involved in
commissionofanyoffenceasalleged. The learned counsel for the
PetitionershassubmittedthattheallegationsintheFIRdonotdisclose
any offence and continuation of the proceedings will be abuse of
processoflaw.

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

3/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

5.

Mr.Shinde,thelearnedAPPhassubmittedthatthematerial

rt

onrecordprimafacieshowstheinvolvementofthePetitionerNo.1.

C
ou

He fairly concedes that the material on record does not show the
involvementofthePetitionerNos.2to7incommissionoftheoffence
undersection376or417oftheIPC.

Mr.SatyavratJoshi,thelearnedcounselfortheRespondentNo.2

ig
h

6.

hassubmittedthatthePetitionerNo.1hadsexualintercoursewiththe

RespondentNo.2underafalsepromiseofmarriage. Hehasfurther
submittedthatbycallingoffthemarriage,thePetitionerNo.1andhis

ba
y

familymembershavecheatedtheRespondentNo.2.

7.

We have perused the records and considered the submissions

om

advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned


counsel for the Respondent No.2 and the learned APP for the

RespondentNo.1State.

8.

The legal principles in regard to quashing of first information

report had been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of


Haryana&Ors.V/s.Bhajanlal&Ors.1992SUPP(1)SCC335and
several other subsequent decisions. Recently in Rishipal Singh Vs.
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

4/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

StateofU.P.&Anr (2014) 7 SCC 215theApexCourtwhileconsidering

rt

thescopeandambitofsection482oftheCr.P.C.hasheldthat

C
ou

A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. makes it crystal clear


that the object of exercise of power under this section is to
prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice.
There are no hard and fast rules that can be laid down for the

ig
h

exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the


same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true
that there can be no straight jacket formula nor defined

parameters to enable a Court to invoke or exercise its inherent


powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances

ba
y

of each case. The Courts have to be very circumspect while


exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

om

9.

The ApexCourt afterconsideringthepreviouspronouncements

hasreiteratedthe guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts

under Section 482Cr.P.C.

What emerges from the above judgments is that when a


prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests
to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the
case. The Courts have to see whether the continuation of the
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

5/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether

rt

continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage

C
ou

of justice or when the Court comes to a conclusion that


quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of

justice, then the Court can exercise the power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under the provision, the

ig
h

Courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the


complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but
it should not convert itself to that of a trial Court and dwell into

the disputed questions of fact.

Thepresentcaseneedstobeexaminedinthebackdropofthe

ba
y

10.

abovementionedprinciples. Aplainreadingofthe FIR revealsthat


the Respondent No.2 was to marry the Petitioner No.1, who is

om

otherwise related to her. Their engagement ceremony was held on


12.9.2014 in presence of their respective family members including

the Petitioner Nos.3 and 4, the sister and brotherinlaw and the
Petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7, the maternal uncles and aunt of the
PetitionerNo.1.

11.

The Respondent No.2 had alleged that on 2.12.2014 she had

visited her cousin at Pune. On 9.12.2014she visitedthe Petitioner


PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

6/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

No.2, her would be motherinlaw, at Pune. The Petitioner No.2

rt

persuadedhertowaittillthePetitionerNo.1returnedhomefromthe

C
ou

workplace. ThePetitionerNo.1camehomeatabout9.00p.m.and
sinceitwaslate,thePetitionerNo.2advisedtheRespondentNo.2to
stayover. TheRespondentNo.2hasallegedthatonthesamenight
whenshewasgoingtotheroomofhermotherinlawtosleep,the

ig
h

PetitionerNo.1tookhertohisroomandhadsexualintercoursewith
heragainstherwishanddespiteherresistancebyassuringherthat

theywouldbemarryingsoon.ShehasstatedthatthePetitionerNo.1
threatened to call off the marriage if she disclosed the incident to

ba
y

anyone.

12.

The Respondent No.2 has further alleged that since the

om

Petitionersavoidedfinalisingtheweddingdate,shewenttohiswork
placeon24.01.2015andquestionedhimaboutthesame.Therewas

analtercationbetweenherandthePetitionerNo.1overthesaidissue.
On 10.02.2015, the uncle of the Petitioner No.1 called her and her
parentstoChisbanvillagetofixtheweddingdate.However,instead
offixingtheweddingdate,theycalledoffthemarriageinviewofthe
incidentof24.1.2015.TheRespondentNo.2claimedthatpetitioners
havecheatedherandherfamilybycallingoffthemarriagewithout

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

7/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

anyreason.Basedontheseallegationstheaforestatedcrimehasbeen

rt

registered against above Petitioners for offences punishable under

13.

C
ou

sections376and417oftheIPC.

It may be mentioned that to constitute an offence of 'rape' as

definedundersection375oftheIndianPenalCode,theactmustbe

ig
h

coveredbyany ofthesixclausesofsection375oftheIndianPenal
Code.Inordertoconstituterapeunderthefirstandsecondclauseof

Section 375,whichare relevantforthepurposeofthiscase,sexual


intercourse hastobeagainstthewillandwithouttheconsentofthe

ba
y

woman. In State Of U.P vs Chhotey Lal (2011) 2 SCC 550 the Apex
Courthasheldthat:

The expressions `against her will' and `without her

om

consent' may overlap sometimes but surely the two


expressionsinclauseFirstandclauseSecondlyhavedifferent
connotation and dimension. The expression `against her
will'wouldordinarilymeanthattheintercoursewasdone
by a man with a woman despite her resistance and
opposition.Ontheotherhand,theexpression`withouther
consent'wouldcomprehendanactofreasonaccompanied
bydeliberation.

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

8/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

InStateofH.P

.v. InStateofH.P

.v.MangoRam3,a3

rt

JudgeBenchofthisCourtwhiledealingwiththeaspectof

230oftheReportasunder:

C
ou

`consent'forthepurposesofSection375IPCheldatpage

"Submissionofthebodyunderthefearofterrorcannotbe
construedasaconsentedsexualact.Consentforthepurpose

ig
h

ofSection 375requires voluntary participation not only


aftertheexerciseofintelligencebasedontheknowledgeof

the significance and moral quality of the act but after


havingfullyexercisedthechoicebetweenresistanceassent.

ba
y

Whethertherewasconsentornot,istobeascertainedonly
onacarefulstudyofallrelevantcircumstances."and,the

om

expression`withoutherconsent'wouldcomprehendanact

14.

ofreasonaccompaniedbydeliberation.

TheavermentsintheFIRneedtobeexaminedinthebackdropof

theabove legalposition. TheRespondentno.2wasengagedtothe


petitioner no.1. A plain reading of the FIR reveals on the relevant
night,whentheRespondentno.2hadvisitedthePetitionerNo.1athis
residenceatPune,thepetitionerno.1hadtriedtogetintimatewith
her. Whensheresistedandtoldhimthatitwasnotappropriate,the

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

9/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

petitionerno.1toldherthattheywouldsoonbegettingmarried.She

rt

hasallegedthatdespiteherresistance,thepetitionerno.1hadforcible

C
ou

sexualintercoursewithheragainstherwill.Shehasstatedthatwhen
shecried,thepetitionerno.1threatenedtocalloffthemarriageifshe
disclosedtheincidenttoanyone.

The allegations in the FIR prima facie indicate that the

ig
h

15.

respondentno.2hadnotconsentedtoandwasnotwillingtoenterinto

aphysicalrelationship,despitewhichthepetitionerno.1hadforcible
sexualintercoursewiththeRespondentno.2againstherwishes.The

ba
y

medicalevidenceisalsoprimafaciesuggestiveofsexualintercourse.
Theallegationsprimefacieconstitutes'rape'underClause1and2of
sec.375. The question whether it was a case of passive submission

om

underpsychologicalpressureorwhetheritwasaresultoftacitconsent
arethequestionswhichwillhavetobefinallydecidedonanalysisof

evidence. Suffice it to state that quashing the FIR in respect of the


offence under Section 376 against the petitioner no.1 at this stage
wouldamounttorejectingtheaccusationmadebytherespondentno.2
without giving her any opportunity to prove the said allegations.
Hence,theprosecutionfortheoffencepunishableunderSection376of
IPCcannotbequashedquathepetitionerno.1.

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

10/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are the

rt

16.

C
ou

familymembersofthePetitionerNo.1.Therearenoallegationsinthe
FIR that these Petitioners hadeither aidedor abetted the Petitioner
No.1incommissionofoffenceundersection376oftheIPC.Theonly
allegation against these Petitioners is that they had called off the

ig
h

marriagebetweenthePetitionerNo.1andtheRespondentNo.2and
hadtherebycheatedtheRespondentNo.2. Itisinthelightofthese

allegationstheoffenceundersection417r/w.34oftheIPChasbeen

ba
y

registeredagainstthePetitionerNo.1andhisfamilymembers.

17.

Cheatingisdefinedunder Section415oftheIPCwhichreads

om

asunder:

18.

Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or


dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver
any property to any person, or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or intentionally
induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do
anythingwhichhewouldnotdooromitifhewerenot
so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is
likelytocausedamageorharmtothatpersoninbody,
mind,reputationorproperty,issaidtocheat.

The Honourable Supreme Court in G.V.Rao v. L.H.V.Prasad

(2000)page693hasheldasunder:

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

11/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

om

ba
y

ig
h

C
ou

rt

Asmentionedabove,Section415hastwoparts.While
in the first part, the person must "dishonestly" or
"fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any
property; in the second part, the person should
intentionallyinducethecomplainanttodooromittodo
a thing. That is to say, in the first part, inducement
mustbedishonestorfraudulent.Inthesecondpart,the
inducement shouldbeintentional.Asobservedbythis
Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney vs. State of
Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575 = 1956 Crl.L.J. 1611 =
1956 SCR 483, a guilty intention is an essential
ingredientoftheoffenceofcheating.Inorder,therefore,
to secure conviction of a person for the offence of
cheating,"mensrea"onthepartofthatperson,mustbe
established.ItwasalsoobservedinMahadeoPrasadvs.
StateofWestBengal,AIR1954SC724=1954Cr.L.J.
1806,thatinordertoconstitutetheoffenceofcheating,
the intention to deceive should be in existence at the
timewhentheinducementwasoffered.Thus,sofaras
secondpartof Section415 isconcerned,"property",at
nostage,isinvolved.Hereitisthedoingofanactor
omissiontodoanactbythecomplainant,asaresultof
intentional inducement by the accused, which is
material.Suchinducementshouldresultinthedoingof
anactoromissiontodoanactasaresultofwhichthe
personconcernedshouldhavesufferedorwaslikelyto
suffer damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or
property

19.

Intheinstantcase,theallegationsinthecomplaintarethatthe

petitioner no.1 had sexual intercourse with the respondent no.2


againstherwishes,bystatingthattheywouldbemarryingsoonand
laterthepetitionerno.1andhisfamilyviz.petitionernos.2to7called
offthemarriageandtherebycheatedtherespondentno.2. TheFIR

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

12/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

reveals that the imputationsofcheatingare made onlybecause the

C
ou

rt

Petitionershadcalledoffthemarriage.

20. In HridayaRanjanPrasadVermavs.StateofBihar(2000)4
SCC168theApexCourthasheldthat:

indeterminingthequestionithastobekeptinmindthatthe

ig
h

distinctionbetweenmerebreachofcontractandtheoffenceof
cheatingisafineone.Itdependsupontheintentionofthe

accusedatthetimetoinducementwhichmaybejudgedbyhis
subsequentconductbutforthissubsequentconductisnotthe

ba
y

soletest.Merebreachofcontractcannotgiverisetocriminal
prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest

om

intentionisshownrightatthebeginningofthetransaction,
that is the time when the offence is said to have been
committed.Thereforeitistheintentionwhichisthegistofthe
offence.Toholdapersonguiltyofcheatingitisnecessaryto
show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the
timeofmakingthepromise.

21.

In the instant case, the FIR reveals that the marriage of the

PetitionerNo.1andtheRespondentNo.2wasfinalisedbytheirparents
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

13/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

andotherfamilymembersandtheirengagementceremonywasheld

rt

on12.9.2014.TheFIRdoesnotindicatethatthePetitionerNo.1from

C
ou

the very inception did not have intention to marry the respondent
no.2.TheFIRdoesnotindicatethatthePetitionerNo.1hadobtained
theconsentoftheRespondentNo.2andhadinducedherintoentering
into a physical relationship by making a false promise of marriage

ig
h

withouthavingintentionorinclinationtomarryher.Thefactthatthe
PetitionerNo.1subsequentlyrefusedtomarryherwouldnotleadtoan

inference that from the very inception the Petitioner No.1 did not

ba
y

intendtomarryingher.

22.

TherecordsrevealthatthemarriageofthePetitionerNo.1and

the Respondent no.2 was called off after the incident of 24.1.2015

om

whentheRespondentNo.2hadvisitedtheworkplaceofthePetitioner
No.1andquarreledwithhimovernonfinalizingofthedateofthe

marriage. A mere breach of promise of marriage or calling off the


marriageduetononcompatibilityorforanysuchreasonwouldnot
perseconstituteanoffenceundersection415oftheIPC,particularly
whentheFIRdoesnotstatethatthePetitionerNo.1andhisfamily
membershaddeceivedtheRespondentNo.2orintentionallyinduced
hertodoanysuchactwhichwaslikelytocausedamageorharmto

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

14/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

The allegations made in the FIR therefore, do not attract the

C
ou

23.

rt

therespondentno.2.

ingredientofsection415oftheIPCandconsequentlydonotconstitute
offencepunishableundersection417oftheIPC.Thisbeingthecase,
thepetitionerscannotbeprosecutedfortheoffencepunishableunder

Atthisstage,wewouldliketostatethatuponregistrationofC.R.

24.

ig
h

section417r/w.34oftheIPC.

No.46of2015thePetitionerNos.3and4beingthesisterandbrother

ba
y

inlawofthePetitionerNo.1hadfiledanapplicationforanticipatory
bail.Thesaidapplicationwasdismissedonthegroundthatnooffence
wasregisteredagainstthem. Sufficeistosaythattheregistrationof

om

offence is not a sine qua non for entertaining an application for


anticipatorybail. Theonlyrequirementisareasonableapprehension

ofarrestinanonbailableoffence.

25.

Be that as it may, upon dismissal of the said application for

anticipatorybail,thesetwopetitionerswerearrestedon7.6.2015.They
had filed an application for regular bail on 9.6.2015 being Bail
Application No.1917 of 2015 before the learned Additional Sessions
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

15/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

Judge,Pune.Byorderdated17thJune,2015,thisCourthaddirected

rt

thelearnedSessionsJudgetodisposeofthesaidapplicationasearlyas

C
ou

possibleandpossiblyon19.6.2015itself.Saidorderwasnotcomplied
with. ConsideringthefactthattheFIRdidnotdiscloseanyoffence
againstthesetwoPetitioners,whoareDoctorbyprofession,thisCourt

26.

ig
h

byorderdated24thJune,2015orderedtoreleasethemonbail.

It is pertinent to note that though the offence was registered

under section 376 and 417 IPC, the FIR does not spell out any
allegationsofrapeagainstthepetitionerNos.3and4.TheInvestigating

ba
y

Officerhasstatedinheraffidavitthaton4.04.2015shehadreceivedan
applicationfromtheRespondentno.2allegingthatthepetitionersno.3
and4hadthreatenedherandthatsheapprehendsthreattoherlife.It

om

may be mentioned that no crime has been registered against these


petitionersforthreateningtheRespondentno.2.Thesepetitionerswere

implicatedinthecrimeonlyontheallegationthattheyhadinfluenced
the petitioner no.1 in calling off the marriage and had thereby
committedanoffenceofcheatingpunishableundersection417ofthe
IPC. Based on these allegations, these petitioners were arrested on
8.06.2015.

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

16/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

27.

It is pertinent to note that the offence under section 417 is

rt

bailableandispunishablewithimprisonmentforoneyear,orfineor

C
ou

both,despitewhichthesetwopetitionerswerearrestedandremanded
tocustodyfromtimetotime. Needlesstostatethatthepowerof
arrestaswellasthepowertoremandcannotbeexercisedinacasual

28.

ig
h

manner.

In JoginderKumarv.StateofU.P.&Ors.(1994)4SCC260,

theApexCourthasemphasizedthat:

Noarrestcanbemadebecauseitislawfulforthepoliceofficer

ba
y

todoso.Theexistenceofthepowerstoarrestisonething.The
justificationfortheexerciseofitisquiteanother. Thepolice
officermustbeabletojustifythearrestapartfromhispowerto

om

doso. Arrestanddetentioninpolicelockup ofapersoncan


causeincalculableharmtothereputationandselfesteemofa
person.Noarrestcanbemadeinaroutinemanneroronamere
allegationofcommissionofanoffencemadeagainstaperson.
It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of
protectionoftheconstitutionalrightsofacitizenandperhapsin
his own interest that no arrest should be made without a
reasonable satisfactionreached after someinvestigationasthe

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

17/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable

rt

beliefbothastotheperson'scomplicityandevensoastothe

C
ou

needtoeffect arrest. Denyingapersonhislibertyisaserious


matter.

29.

InthecaseofArneshKumarv.StateofBihar&Anr.(2014)8

Cr.P.C.hasheldasunder:

ig
h

SCC273,theApexCourtafterconsideringthescopeofSection41of

7.1. Fromaplainreadingoftheaforesaidprovision,it

is evident that a person accused of offence punishable


withimprisonmentforatermwhichmaybelessthan

ba
y

sevenyearsorwhichmayextendtosevenyearswithor
withoutfine,cannotbearrestedbythepoliceofficeronly
onitssatisfactionthatsuchpersonhadcommittedthe

om

offence punishable as aforesaid. Police officer before


arrest,insuchcaseshastobefurthersatisfiedthatsuch
arrest is necessary to prevent such person from
committing any further offence; or for proper
investigationofthecase;ortopreventtheaccusedfrom
causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or
tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to
preventsuchpersonfrommakinganyinducement,threat
or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from
disclosingsuchfactstotheCourtorthepoliceofficer;or

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

18/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

unlesssuchaccusedpersonisarrested,hispresenceinthe

rt

courtwheneverrequiredcannotbeensured.Thesearethe
conclusions,whichonemayreachbasedonfacts.Law

C
ou

mandatesthepoliceofficertostatethefactsandrecord

the reasons in writing which led him to come to a


conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid,
whilemakingsucharrest.Lawfurtherrequiresthepolice
officerstorecordthereasonsinwritingfornotmaking

ig
h

thearrest.Inpithandcore,thepoliceofficebeforearrest
mustputaquestiontohimself,whyarrest?Isitreally
required?Whatpurposeitwillserve?Whatobjectitwill

achieve?Itisonlyafterthesequestionsareaddressedand
one or the other conditions as enumerated above is
satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In

ba
y

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.

om

Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied


furtherthatthearrestisnecessaryforoneorthemore
purposesenvisagedbysubclauses
(a)to(e)ofclause(1)ofSection41ofCr.PC.

30.

UponconsideringthescopeofSection41AofCr.P.C.andwhile

emphasizingtheneedtoensurethatthepoliceofficersdonotarrest
theaccused unnecessarilyandMagistratedonotauthorizedetention
casually and mechanically the Apex Court has given following
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

19/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

directions:

rt

11.1. All the State Government to instruct its

C
ou

policeofficersnottoautomaticallyarrestwhenthecase
underSection498AofIPCisregistered,buttosatisfy
themselves about the necessity for arrest under the
parameterslaiddownaboveflowingfromSection41
Cr.P.C.

ig
h

11.2. Allpoliceofficersbeprovidedwithachecklist
containingspecifiedsubclausesunderSection41(1)(b)
(ii);

11.3.Thepoliceofficershallforwardthechecklistduly
filed and furnish the reasons and materials which

ba
y

necessitatedthe arrest,whileforwarding/producing the


accusedbeforetheMagistrateforfurtherdetention;
11.4.TheMagistratewhileauthorisingdetentionofthe

om

accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police


officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its
satisfaction,theMagistratewillauthorisedetention;
11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be
forwardedtotheMagistratewithintwoweeksfromthe
date of the institution of the case with a copy to the
MagistratewhichmaybeextendedbytheSuperintendent
ofpoliceofthedistrictforthereasonstoberecordedin
writing;
11.6. Notice of appearance in terms ofSection 41Aof

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

20/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

Cr.PCbeservedontheaccusedwithintwoweeksfromthe

rt

dateofinstitutionofthecase,whichmaybeextendedby
toberecordedinwriting;

C
ou

theSuperintendentofPoliceoftheDistrictforthereasons

11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid


shallapartfromrenderingthepoliceofficersconcerned
liablefordepartmentalaction,theyshallalsobeliableto
bepunishedforcontemptofcourttobeinstitutedbefore

ig
h

HighCourthavingterritorialjurisdiction.
11.8. Authorisingdetentionwithoutrecordingreasons

asaforesaidbythejudicialMagistrateconcernedshallbe
liable for departmentalactionby theappropriateHigh
Court.

Wehastentoaddthatthedirectionsaforesaidshall

ba
y

12.

notonlyapplytothecasesunderSection498AoftheI.P.C.
orSection 4of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in
withimprisonment foratermwhichmay belessthan
sevenyearsorwhichmayextendtosevenyears;whether
withorwithoutfine.

om

hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable

31.

Revertingtothepresentcase,thoughtheInvestigatingofficerhas

stated in the affidavit that the guidelinesaslaid down by the Apex


CourtinthearrestofAccusedwerefollowedatthetimeofarrest,a
perusalofthecasediaryrevealsthatthedirectionsinArneshKumar
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

21/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

(supra) have not been followed. The concerned investigating officer

rt

had arrested the petitioners no.3 and 4 without ascertaining their

C
ou

complicity in the offence. Though the offence was bailable, these


petitioners were produced before the Magistrate and remand was
soughtforthepurposeofascertainingthereasonforcallingoffthe
marriage,forverifyingwhethertheotherrelativeswere involved,to

ig
h

verifywhetherthesepetitionerswereinvolvedincheatinganyother
person and for arresting the coaccused Annasaheb Jadhav. The

records reveal that the learned magistrate had also mechanically


remandedthemtocustodyfromtimetotimewithoutevenascertaining

ba
y

thenatureoftheallegationsagainstthesepetitioners.

32.

Thepetitionersno.3and4hadfiledthebailapplicationbefore

om

thesessionscourton9.6.2015.ThelearnedSessionsJudgehadcalled
for the say of the prosecution on 19.6.2015. By order dated

17.06.2015 the learned Judge was directed to dispose of the


applicationon19.06.2015itself.ThelearnedJudgedidnotdispose
of the application and adjourned the same to 22.6.2015. On
24.06.2015thelearnedcounselforthepetitionersmadeastatement
thaton19.6.2015thecounselforthepetitionersandthelearnedAPP
were present in the court and despite the request to hear the bail

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

22/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

application,thelearnedJudgewasreluctanttoheartheapplication

rt

andhadadjournedthehearingto22.06.2015. Itwasfurtherstated

C
ou

thatthecounselforthepetitionershadappearedbeforethecourton
22.06.2015andthatshewasinformedthatthebailapplicationwould
be heard in the afternoon session. However, by 12 p.m. she was
informedthatthelearnedJudgehadproceededonleaveonmedical

ig
h

groundsandthehearingofthebailapplicationwasfurtheradjourned.
Inviewoftheabovestatement,thiscourtbyorderdated24.6.2015

ordered to release the petitioners on bail. The Principal District

ba
y

SessionsJudge,Punewasdirectedtosubmitthereporttothiscourt.

33.

Wehaveperusedthereportandtheexplanationtenderedbythe

learnedJudge,andthesameinourviewisnotsatisfactory.Thebail

om

application was filed on 09.06.2015 and was opposed on the same


groundsasstatedintheremandapplication.ThelearnedJudgefailed

to consider that there were no allegations of rape against these


petitionersandtheonlyallegationwereofoffencepunishableunder
Section417IPC. ThelearnedJudgehadadjournedthehearingon
19.6.2015,merelyonthestatementoftheAPPthattheoffencewasof
seriousnature.Despitethedirectiontodisposeofthebailapplication
on 19.06.2015, and despite the offence being bailable offence, the

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

23/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

failureofthelearnedJudgetodisposeoftheapplicationexpeditiously

rt

hasalsoresultedinillegaldetentionofthepetitionersincustodyfrom

34.

C
ou

7thJune,2015to24thJune,2015.

It is indeed a matterofgreat concern that despite the offence

beingbailable,theInvestigatingagency,theJudicialMagistrateaswell

ig
h

as the Sessions Court were responsible for detaining the aforesaid


petitioners in custody from 7.6.2015 to 24.6.2015 in total

contravention of the directions of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar


(supra) and in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner

ba
y

nos.3and4.

35.

Hencewedeemitfittodirectanenquiryagiansttheerrantpolice

om

officers,aswellastheconcernedjudicialofficers,inaccordancewith
thedirectionsoftheApexCourtinArneshKumar(para11.7and11.8.

supra). Thepetitionernos.3and4areatlibertytofileappropriate
proceedingsforcompensation,iftheysodesire.

36.

Underthecircumstancesandinviewofdiscussionsupra,wepass

thefollowingorder:
(i)Thepetitionispartlyallowed,withcostsofRs.50,000/
PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

24/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::

WWW.LIVELAW.IN
902_wp_1252_2015

tobepaidtothepetitionernos.3and4.

rt

(ii) The C.R.No.46 of 2015 registered at Bhosari Police

C
ou

Station,Pune,isquashedquathePetitionerNos.2to7and
quashed qua the petitioner no.1 only in respect of the
offenceundersection417r/w34oftheIPC.

(iii)Theregistryisdirectedtoforwardcopyofthisorderto

ig
h

the Commissioner of Police, Pune. The Commissioner of


Police,Punetoenquireintothematterofillegaldetention

andtofixtheresponsibilityandtotakedisciplinaryaction
againsttheerringpoliceofficers.

ba
y

(iv) The respondent no.1 shall recover the costs of


Rs.50,000/fromtheerringpoliceofficers.
(viTheinquiryandactiontakenreportbefiledbeforethis

om

court within four months from the date of receipt of this


order.
(vi) A copy of this order be forwarded to the Registrar
General,HighCourt,tobeplacedbeforetheHonourableThe
ChiefJustice,BombayHighCourt.

(ANUJAPRABHUDESSAI,J.)

PPS
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2016

(RANJITMORE,J.)

25/25
::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2016 17:30:31 :::