Skip to main content

बिना FIR के बुलाने और Arrest करने पर पुलिस वाले को 3 महीने की जेल।

पुलिस को बिना मामला दर्ज किए किसी को बुलाने और गिरफ्तार करने का कोई अधिकार नहीं - सुप्रीम कोर्ट

Detaining or Summoning a Person even though No Crime is Registered Against him is Illegal: Supreme Court




The Supreme Court observed that summoning and detaining a person without there being any crime registered against him would be violative of basic principles.

The directions issued in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, would be applicable even if no crime was registered, the bench observed.

In this case, a man approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking a direction not to arrest him without giving due notice under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure. His wife had filed a complaint alleging offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The single Judge thus directed the police to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar.

Later, he filed a Contempt Case alleging that in spite of the order passed by the High Court, he was forcibly taken away by the police officer to Akividu police station and detained him there.

The single bench took note of the enquiry report filed bu Metropolitan Sessions Judge in this matter which stated that the petitioner was not only summoned to Akividu Police Station in the name of counseling but was also detained. The bench thus held that the police officer is guilty of contempt of court. He was sentenced to suffer three months imprisonment.

Setting aside this order, the Division bench observed that since no crime was registered, the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar would not come into play. "But in the instant case, no crime was registered till date. When there is no crime, the question of arresting the writ petitioners would not arise.", the Division bench observed.

The Apex Court bench, taking note of the enquiry report, observed that there was clear violation of the directions issued by this Court not only in Arnesh Kumar but also in the case in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

"The mere fact that no crime was registered, could not be a defence, nor would it be an escape from the rigour of the decisions rendered by this Court. As a matter of fact, summoning the person without there being any crime registered against him and detaining him would itself be violative of basic principles", the court observed.

Restoring the single bench order, the Court modified the substantive sentence of three months to 15 days



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1003 OF 2021

(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 10427/2019)

M.A KHALIQ & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 18-07-2019

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Amravati in Contempt Appeal No. 45/2018 by which the order passed by the

Single Judge in Contempt Case No.1907/2016 was set aside and the appeal

preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed.

Taking cognizance of the assertions and allegations made in Contempt

Case No.1907 of 2016, the Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated

09.12.2016 had passed following directions:

“The issue raised in this Contempt Case is whether in spite of an

order dt. 19.08.2016 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 27778 of 2016,

the 1st petitioner was forcibly taken away by the 2nd respondent

herein at 10.30 pm on 29.08.2016. While the petitioners allege that it

is the 2nd respondent who was responsible for violating the order

passed by this Court, in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd

respondent, this allegation is denied.

Therefore, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal

Court, Nampally, Hyderabad shall inquire into the matter after

recording the evidence adduced on behalf of petitioners as well as

2

nd respondent within a period of eight (08) weeks from today and

submit a report to this Court as to the allegations leveled by

petitioners.

Post after eight (08) weeks.”

Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, inquired into the matter and in his report dated 18.04.2017 it was

stated as under:

“Thus, the Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram Rural PS in his enquiry

report submitted to the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari

District dt. 5.1.2017 admitted the petitioner no. 1 being the Akiveedu

PS on 30.08.2016 and on 31.08.2016 and the petitioner no. 1 and his

wife entered into a settlement deed and the petitioner no. 1 agreed to

pay Rs. 9 lakhs to his wife. But, the respondent no. 2 denied the

same and stated that there was no necessity for him to bring PW1 to

the PS, when the case was withdrawn by Razia Sultana on

24.08.2016 itself. If the case was withdrawn by Razia Sultana on

24.08.2016 itself as contended by the respondent no. 2 there was no

necessity for both the parties to settle the matter in the PS by

executing Ex. P1. The documents exhibited by the petitioners would

support the contention of the petitioners the PW1 was forcibly

brought to Akiveedu PS and got signed on Ex. P1 against his will.

The copy of the release deed given to PW1 would also prove that he

was taken by the Akiveedu Police and released on 31.08.2016. The

said document would disclose that he was called for counseling to

the police station in relation to the complaint given by the wife of

PW1. No notice was issued to the petitioner no. 1 under Section 41-

A Cr.P.C asking him to attend the counseling by respondent no. 2.

Without issuing any notice to the petitioner no. 1 taking him to

Akiveedu Police Station in the name of counseling, detaining him on

30.08.2016 and on 31.08.2016 till 11.00 p.m. would prove the

contention of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 was forcibly

taken away by the second respondent in violation of the orders of the

Hon’ble High Court in writ petition no. 27778/2016 dt. 19.08.2016.

The respondent no. 2 submitted that he was not available in the

Police station and he was on bandobust duty from 12.08.2016 to

28.08.2016. The alleged dates of confinement of PW1 in the PS are

on 30.08.2016 and 31.08.2016. The respondent no. 2 had not stated

anything about his absence in the PS on the said dates. Hence, the

oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners would

amply prove the contention of the petitioners that PW1 was forcibly

taken away by the second respondent to Akiveedu Police on

29.08.2016 at 10.30 p.m. from Hyderabad and was illegally detained

in the PS on 30.08.2016 and on 31.08.2016 till 11.00 p.m.”

The matter was thereafter taken up by the Single Judge of the High

Court. After considering the rival submissions, by his decision dated

29.11.2019, the Single Judge found respondent No.1, who at the relevant time,

was Station House Officer, Akividu Police Station, West Godavari District to

be guilty of contempt. The concluding part of the decision of the Single Judge

was to the following effect:

“32. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed. The 2nd respondent

is sentenced to suffer three (03) months imprisonment with a fine of

Rs. 2,000/- under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for

willful disobedience of the order dt. 19.08.2016 passed in WPMP

No. 34412 of 2016 in WP No. 27778 of 2016; the sentence of

imprisonment is suspended for a period of six (06) weeks; the

petitioners shall deposit subsistence allowance at the rate of Rs. 300/-

per day within six (06) weeks.

Disciplinary action shall also be initiated by the State of Andhra

Pradesh rep. By its Principal Secretary, Home Department,

Secretariat, Velagapudi against the 2nd respondent in regard to the

wrongful detention of 1st petitioner on 30.08.2016 and 31.08.2016 in

violation of the above order passed by this Court.”

Respondent No.1 being aggrieved, filed Contempt Appeal No.45 of 2018.

The Division Bench of the High Court took the view that since no crime was

registered, the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of

Bihar & Another1

 would not come into play. The Contempt Appeal was,

therefore, allowed by the Division Bench. The observations in that behalf were:

“Admittedly, in the instant case, no crime is registered till date. The

learned Counsel for the writ petitioners is not in a position to tell us

as to whether any crime was registered in the police station, while

the learned Government Pleader would submit that pursuant to the

report lodged by the wife of the 1st petitioner, the appellant called the

petitioners to the police station over phone for counseling and

thereafter, the matter was settled.

Be that as it may, now the issue is whether the appellant willfully

disobeyed the orders of this Court dated 19.8.2016 in WPMP No.

34412 of 2016 in W.P. No. 27778 of 2016 and the judgment of the

Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another. The

learned Counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that the

appellant has forcibly taken away the 1st petitioner and detained him

illegally in the police station. The said contention was denied by the

appellant. As stated by us earlier, the above judgment of the Apex

Court would come into operation only when the crime was

registered. But in the instant case, no crime was registered till date.

When there is no crime, the question of arresting the writ petitioners

would not arise.”

Being aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench, the original

Contempt Petitioner is in appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. 

The report of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, after due inquiry into the

matter sets out the factual details of the matter. The report indicates that thecontempt petitioner was not only summoned to Akividu Police Station in the

name of counseling but was also detained.


In the circumstances, there was clear violation of the directions issued by

this Court not only in Arnesh Kumar1

but also in the case in D.K. Basu v. State

of West Bengal2

 .

The mere fact that no crime was registered, could not be a defence, nor

would it be an escape from the rigour of the decisions rendered by this Court.

As a matter of fact, summoning the person without there being any crime

registered against him and detaining him would itself be violative of basic

principles.

In the circumstances, the Division Bench was not right and justified in

setting aside the view taken by the Single Judge of the High Court. We,

therefore, allow this appeal. While setting aside the decision of the Division

Bench of the High Court, we restore the decision of the Single Judge.

However, considering the facts and circumstances on record, the

substantive sentence of three months as recorded in paragraph 32 of the

decision of the Single Judge is modified to 15 days leaving rest of the incidents

of sentence completely intact.

The contemnor shall surrender himself before the Registrar of the High. Court within two weeks from today.

With these observations, the appeal stands allowed.

…………………………………J.

[UDAY UMESH LALIT]

…………………………………J.

[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]

…………………………………J.

[ BELA M. TRIVEDI]

New Delhi;

September 15, 2021.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Bhopal Police Officers Inspectors Mobile Number and E mail ID

  OFFICERS LIST IGP TO TI POLICE OFFICERS CUG NUMBER LIST BHOPAL S.NO. POSTING RANK NAME P&T PBX CUG NO. E-MAIL 1 BHOPAL ADGP SHRI A SAI MANOHAR 2443599 407 9479990399 bhopalig@gmail.com 2 CITY/BPL DIG/CITY SHRI IRSHAD WALI 2443201 408 7049100401 dig_bhopal@mppolice.gov.in 3 DIG/ RANGE/ RURAL DIG/RURAL SHRI SANJAY TIWARI 2443499 305 7587628122 digbplrange09@gmail.com 4 BHOPAL SP (HQ) SHRI RAMJI  SHRIVASTAV 2443223 367 7049100405 sp_bhopal@mppolice.gov.in 5 BHOPAL SP (SOUTH) SHRI SAI KRISHNA THOTA 2443800 359 9479990500 spsouth_bhopal@gmail.com 6 BHOPAL SP (NORTH) SHRI VIJAY KUMAR KHATRI 2443320 377 9479990700 spnorth320@gmail.com 7 BHOPAL ASP (HQ) SMT RICHA COUBE 2677319 319 7587615141 asphqbpl@gmail.com 8 BHOPAL AIG SMT RASHMI MISHRA 2443804 9479990620 bhopalig@gmail.com 9 BHOPAL ASP(CYBER)CRIME VACANT 2920664 7587628201 asp.cybercrime-bpl@mppolice.gov.in 10 BHOPAL ASP(CRIME) SHRI GOPAL DHAKAD 2761651 947999060

Supreme Court VC Video Conferencing Link

  ALL DAYS THIS LINKS ARE WORKING....NO CHANGES Seen. PLZ DONT MISUSE IT Video conferencing link common for all days. S.NO. COURT NO. COURT LINKS 1. Court No. 1 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court01 2. Court No. 2 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court02 3. Court No. 3 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court03 4. Court No. 4 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court04 5. Court No. 5 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court05 6. Court No. 6 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court06 7. Court No. 7 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court07 8. Court No. 8 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court08 9. Court No. 9 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court09          9A Court no.10            https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court10 10. Court No. 11 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court11 11. Court No. 12 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court12 12. Court No. 13 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court13 13. Court No. 14 https://sci-vc.webex.com/meet/court14

Nehru खानदान की सच्चाई , Basic Knowledge of Nehru Family!

  Truth Of Nehru Surname  मोतीलाल नेहरू की 5 पत्नियाँ थीं। (1) स्वरूप रानी (2) थुसु रहमान बाई (3) मंजुरी देवी (4) एक ईरानी महिला (5) एक कश्मीरी महिला नंबर 1- स्वरूप रानी और नंबर 3- मंजुरि देवी को लेकर कोई समस्या नहीं है। दूसरी पत्नी थुसू रहमान बाई के पहले पति मुबारक अली थे। मोतीलाल की नौकरी, मुबारक अली के पास थी। मुबारक की आकस्मिक मृत्यु के कारण मोतीलाल थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह कर लिये और परोक्ष रूप से पूरी संपत्ति के मालिक बन गये। थुसु रहमान बाई को मुबारक अली से 2 बच्चे पहले से ही मौजूद थे- (1) शाहिद हुसैन (2) जवाहरलाल, मोतीलाल द्वारा इन दोनों बच्चों शाहिद हुसैन और जवाहरलाल को थुसु रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से अपना बेटा कह दिया गया। प्रासंगिक उल्लेख:- जवाहरलाल की माँ थुसू रहमान बाई थी, लेकिन उनके पिता मुबारक अली ही थे। तदनुसार थुसू रहमान बाई से निकाह करने की वजह से मोतीलाल, जवाहरलाल नेहरू के पालक पिता थे। मोतीलाल की चौथी पत्नी एक ईरानी महिला थी, जिसे मुहम्मद अली जिन्ना नामक एक बेटा था मोतीलाल की 5 नंबर वाली पत्नी एक कश्मीरी महिला थी, यह मोतीलाल नेहरु की नौकरानी थी। इसको शेख अब्दुल

Maharashtra Health Directory Mobile and Email address DHO, Civil Surgeon , Directors

  Contacts Ministers Back Minister Name Contact No. Mail ID   Prof.Dr.Tanajirao Sawant Hon. Minister Public Health and Family Welfare     (O) min.familywelafre@gmail.com     (F) Minister of State Name Contact No. Shri.  Hon. State Minister, Public Health 22886025 (O) 22023992 (F) Officers Name Contact No. Mail ID Project Director, Maharashtra State Aids Control Society 24113097/5619/5791   (O) pd@mahasacs.org Shri Shivanand Taksale (I.A.S.) CEO, State Health Assurance Society 24999203/204/205 (O)   Mantralaya State Public Health Department,  Mantralaya, Mumbai Telephone - 22610018 Officers Name Department / Section Telephone No in the workshop Expanded Mobile No Email IDs Subject Shri.Sanjay Khandare (I.A.S) Principal Secretary-1. 22617388 22632166 22617999 (F)             204         PA 216  Anti 211   psec.pubhealth@maharashtra.gov.in      Shri. N.Nawin Sona Secretary-2 22719030 / 22719031   202 / 244 PA 250   psec2.pubhealth@maharashtra.gov.in   Shri. Shivdas Dhule  (PA Shri. Mohite

MP Police Directory DGP Mobile Number Sudhir Saxena

MADHYA PRADESH POLICE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY I D S N B R A N C H N A M E D E S I G N A I O N S T D  C O D E O F F I C E R E S I F A X 1 F A X 2 M O B I L E CUG E  M A I L A D D R E S S 1 1 D G P  O F F I C E S u r e n d r a  S i n h D G P 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 0 2 4 4 3 3 3 6 2 4 4 3 5 0 1 94 25 01 45 35 70 49 10 00 01 dgp mp @m ppo lic e.g ov .in C-1 0, Swa mi Da ya na nd N ag ar Bh op al 2 2 M i l i n d  K a n s k e r A D G / P S O 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 2 6 2 4 4 3 5 2 8 8 9 8 9 9 9 7 2 7 7 7 0 4 9 1 0 0 5 1 0  p s o d g p m p @ m p p o l i c e . g o v . i n  D - 2 / 1 9 , C h a r  I m l i 3 3 P r a d e e p  B h a t i y a J D . ( P  R ) 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 5 2 4 9 1 1 7 2 9 4 2 5 1 7 1 1 1 3 H - 3 9 5 , S a i  A d h a r s h i l a  B a r k h e d a 4 4 D . P .  J u g a d e P S  T o  D G P 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 2 9 8 2 6 0 3 6 5 9 3 7049100502 134-A SEC-Sarvadharm Colony, 5 5 N . K .  S h r i v a s t a v a P S  T o  D G P 0 7 5 5 2 4 4 3 5 0 2 9 7 5 2 7 0 0 9 4 6 7049155426 G-40/9, S. T.T. Nagar. 6

तोता पालने पर जेल जाओगे , कैद में रखना crime, Parrot Caging

  Crime Under Section 49,51 Of  Wild Life Protection act  तोता पालना तो देश में कॉमन है, ऐसे में उसको पिंजड़े में रखना भी अपराध है? वाइल्डलाइफ एक्ट के मुताबिक,  तोते या किसी अन्य पक्षी को पिंजड़े में कैद करके रखना और उससे किसी भी तरह का लाभ लेने के लिए प्रशिक्षण देना कानूनन अपराध है । भारत में कानून इजाजत नहीं देता कि किसी भी पक्षी को कैद करके रखा जाए। आम तौर पर नागरिक तोतों को पालतू पक्षी मानते हैं लेकिन वन्यजीव अधिनियम 1972 की धारा-4 के तहत इसे या किसी भी अन्य पक्षी को पिंजरे में कैद रखना या पालना गैरकानूनी है। वन्य प्राणी संरक्षण अधिनियम 1972 के अंतर्गत तोता को पालना या पिंजरे में कैद करना दंडनीय अपराध है। यदि किसी व्यक्ति ने तोता पाल रखा हो या उसे पिंजरे में कैद रखा हो तो वन विभाग के नजदीकी कार्यालय में सुपुर्द कर दें। देश भर में तोतों की करीब एक दर्जन प्रजातियां मौजूद हैं और सभी संरक्षित हैं। नियमानुसार तोतों को पालने के लिए वन विभाग की अनुमति जरूरी होती है, लेकिन उन्हें पिंजरे में बंद करने वाले यह अनुमति नहीं लेते हैं। लोग शौकिया तौर पर पिंजरों में रंग-बिरंगे पक्षियों को घरों में

Limitation Act Applicable In Contempt Petition For Condonation Of Delay

  NINE YEARS DELAY CONDONE BY COURT AS RESPONDENT STILL DOING CONTEMPT . Cites 18 docs - [ View All ] Section 20 in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Article 215 in The Constitution Of India 1949 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 The Special Courts Act, 1979 Pallav Sheth vs Custodian & Ors on 10 August, 2001 Citedby 0 docs S.G.L. Degree College vs Sri Aditya Nath Das, Ias And ... on 24 October, 2018 Smt. Kusumbai W/O Harinarayan ... vs M/S Shreeji Builders And ... on 14 November, 2019 Yogesh Vyas vs Rajesh Tiwari on 31 July, 2019 Sunil Kumar vs Girish Pillai on 31 July, 2019 Pramod Pathak vs Heera Lal Samriya & Others on 13 December, 2021 Madras High Court M.Santhi vs Mr.Pradeed Yadav on 11 April, 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.04.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM CONTEMPT PETITION No.377 of 2018 M.Santhi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Mr.Pradeed Yadav, I.A.S, Secretary to Government, School Education (HSE-1)

Mehandipur Balaji Trustee Mobile Number

  मेहंदीपुर बालाजी ट्रस्टी का मोबाइल नंबर Dausa: Mehandipur Balaji Black Magic Mobile Number | Mehandipur Balaji Psychological Treatment Phone No. Mehandipur Balaji Temple is famous for saving people from Black Magic and Tantrik Kriya. Lord Balaji lives with Bhairav ji and Pretraj Sarkar. People come here for their Solution of Problems and Manokamna. Any Person affected with bad Spirit will Start Rotating his/her Head. Balaji, Bhairavraj and Pretraj Sarkar can help from Black Magic and Evil Spirits. Mehandipur Balaji Savamani Mobile Number | Mehandipur Balaji Arji Phone No. - +91-9782320445 और +91-9351416114 if any Person want to Solve their Problems then they Should Hire or Contact Pujari (Pandit ji) for Puja Path. Hanuman Kavach is also grace of Mehandipur Balaji. Hanuman Kavach is made after various Pooja Path and Tantra Saadhana. Pujari Mobile Number for Black Magic / Bad Spirit and Tantrik Problems  Solutions in Mehandipur Balaji - +91-9929156094

जब भी police complaint करे तो General Diary Number demand करे.

  WITHOUT GENERAL DIARY NUMBER YOUR COMPLAINT HAVE NO VALUE AND IT MEANS THAT YOUR COMPLAINT IS NOT IN RECORD.... A general diary (GD) entry or a daily diary entry is made when any kind of complaint is lodged and the police enter the details in their records. Thereafter, if the police believe that there is some prima facie evidence of a cognizable offense being committed, it is registered as an FIR. As requested by complainant in the CRPC 156 (3) matter the inquiry report has not been called from vishnu nagar police station till date. The additional copy of complaint was submitted during filing .Complainant request to call report from Vishnu nagar police station with diary remark. The police has not entered my complaint in general diary till date ie last six month. In Madhu Bala vs. Suresh Kumar (1997) 8 SCC 476, Supreme Court has held that FIR must be registered in the FIR Register which shall be a book consisting of 200 pages. It is true that the substance of the information is also