Skip to main content

Case Analysis: Vimal Kumar v/s UP

 Case Analysis: Vimal Kumar v/s UP


By Nemi Bhavsar


Brief facts of the case
Marriage was fixed between the petitioner 1 and respondent 4’s daughter. It was alleged by respondents that Rs. 6.5 lacs were given to the petitioner 1 and there was a further allegation made that Creta car was demanded by petitioners and if that was not fulfilled, petitioner 1 threatened to not solemnize the marriage. A complaint was made against the petitioners U/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code by the respondents and petitioners approached the High Court for quashing of FIR and protection from arrest as prayers via issuance of writ order by the Hon’ble High Court.


Issue
Whether police can proceed with straight forwardly arresting of the accused after complaint against them is made under Section 498-A of IPC?


Rules
Section 41(1) of CrPC deals with the situations where police can arrest any person without getting warrant or order from the magistrate. It entails within itself a sub-clause(b) which talks about some ingredients which need to be satisfied if police has to proceed with arrest of accused without warrant or order from magistrate, when a reasonable complaint or suspicion exists or credible information is received as to committing of a cognizable offence punishable upto 7 years or less by the said accused.
The ingredients entailed in Section 41(1)(b) include belief of police officer that accused has committed the said offence on basis of complaint, information or suspicion received, in addition to being satisfied that arrest is necessary for prevention of further offence that can be committed by him, or for proper investigation, or for preventing tampering or disapperaing of evidence, or preventing inducement, threat to facts acquainted persons by the accused in order to prevent them from informing the same facts to police authorities or judicial officers, or when presence before the court can’t be ensured without making arrest. The reasons must have to be recorded in writing if arrest is required.
Section 41A of CrPC talks about that when arrest was not required after following the provisions of Section 41(1), notice has to be served to that person to appear before the police officer in charge and further entails that if the accused complies with the terms of notice then there is no need to arrest him. But, if he fails to do so or the police officer opines after recording of reasons that arrest is necessary, he can be arrested.


Analysis
The contentions of counsel for petitioners were that after ring ceremony took place between petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 4’s daughter, it were the respondents who demanded money for solemnizing the marriage and threatened to file false criminal cases if that demand was not fulfilled. And that the current complaint made was only a consequence of that non-fullfillment of demand. Further, it was submitted that Sections under which case had been registered were all punishable with less than 7 years and in absence of any credible evidence and without issuing of notice, the petitioners cannot be arrested as per Section 41A, Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41(1)(b)(ii)(e) of CrPC etc.
The court opined that Section 41A and Section 41(1)(b) of CrPC were the only relevant sections to be applied as per the factual matrix of the case.
Court primarily relied upon the extracted relevant paragraphs of the judgement of the Apex Court in case of Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice1. In that case directions were issued and were as follows:Magistrates/Police authorities were directed that when a person accused of committing any cognizable offence punishable upto 7 years is produced before them for grant of remand, it is duty of Magistrate to ensure that remand is sought in a bonafide manner and that reasons provided for the same in case diary are in accordance with requirements of Section 41(1)(b) and 41A of CrPC.
In addition, it was directed that when accused has surrendered, or investigation stage is over and it is time to take accused into the judicial custody, bail applications should be dealt with expeditiously and not refused on the face of it until and unless allegations are of grave nature or there is any other obstacle of legal nature in granting the bail.
Magistrates were further granted free hand to send information to Registrar of High Courts regarding any police officer who in malafide manner is persistently arresting persons accused of committing cognizable offences punishable upto 7 years in contravention of requirements of Section 41A and Section 41(1)(b). DGP may be directed by the registrar to take action against the concerned police officer after that.


Conclusion
It was laid down that discretion of police officers to arrest an accused when a complaint has been made under Section 498A of IPC is not absoulte and should not be arbitrarily carried out instantly just after the case has been registered. Rather, checklist is to be filled of clauses mentioned in Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of CrPC along with recording of reasons and material to be sent before magistrate which necessitate the arrest. After due satisfaction only, detention shall be authorised by Magistrate.
When custody is not required and arrest is not required, accused can be asked to appear before the officers by serving a notice to him as per Section 41A of CrPC and if he complies with the same, no need of arrest is there, and can only be arrested if he fails to comply with terms of notice or post recording of reasons, the police officer opines that arrest is necessary.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY

  LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY: LEXIS AND COMPANY, renowned for its excellence in the legal field, is thrilled to announce an exceptional internship and trainee opportunity for aspiring final year law students and newly enrolled Advocates. This highly coveted internship  and trainee opportunity  is a paid position, providing a remarkable platform for career growth and experiential learning in a corporate environment. Eligibility: Only for final year Students and Newly Enrolled Advocates. We are offering a limited number of vacancies, designed for law students and newly enrolled advocates in the dynamic world of the legal profession. This is an immediate joining opportunity, available to candidates who are interested to work in the area of commercial and civil litigation and have interest towards drafting, and legal research. As a team member at  LEXIS AND COMPANY,  you will refine your research and drafting skills while witnessing the meticulous professional conduct expected

Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1)

   Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) --- PLEASE READ THE COMPLETE JOB DESCRIPTION BEFORE APPLYING ---   Urgent Hiring for: LAW STUDENTS/CS STUDENTS/ FRESHER LAW GRADUATES/ FRESHER CS. Position: Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) Department: Legal. Firm Name: LEXIS AND COMPANY – LAW FIRM. Location: Janakpuri, New Delhi. CTC: RS 5000/- Per Month. Additional Allowance: All official expenses including travelling allowance for official purposes will be paid from the day 1 of the service with the firm.   We are urgently looking for LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS for the position of Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) for our Law Firm in Janakpuri, New Delhi.   Eligibility: Mandatory Qualification: Any LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS who wants to learn as a beginner. Desired Qualification: Any additional qualification  will be pre

The Doctrine of Alternative Danger

  THE DOCTRINE OF ALTERNATIVE DANGER Although the plaintiff is supposed to be cautious in spite of the defendant’s Negligence, there can also be certain situations when the plaintiff is justified in taking some threat where some unsafe state of affairs has been created by way of the defendant. The plaintiff may appear as puzzled or worried through a hazardous state of affairs created via the defendant and to store his man or woman or property, or now and again to store a third party from such danger, he may take a choice risk. The law, therefore, lets in the plaintiff to come across a choice danger to shop by himself from the chance created via the defendant. If the path adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his motion in opposition to the defendant will now not fail. The judgment of the plaintiff, however, is not rash. The position can be defined by means of the case of Jones v . Boyce . In that case, the plaintiff used to be a passenger in the defendant’s train and instruct