Dr. Rini Johar & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
|
Head Note
Criminal Laws - Arrest and Detention
Violation of procedure of arrest and curtailment of liberty - Petitioners contend that for the atrocities on them, they should be compensated and that no case is made out against them - Further alleged that they were forced to pay Rs. 5 lacs to Respondent no.3, Dy.S.P. Cyber Cell - Submission of State that matter should not be adjudicated as State Government has held inquiry and initiated proceedings against Respondent no.3 - Held, submission cannot be accepted. Initiation of a disciplinary proceeding or criminal prosecution should not be an impediment for delineation as regards the violation of procedure of arrest and curtailment of liberty.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 420 , Section 34
Quashing of proceedings - FIR filed under Sections 420 and 34 IPC and under Section 66D of IT Act - On discharge application by petitioners, Magistrate found prima facie case against them under Section 420 IPC and Section 66A(b) of IT Act -Petitioners allege that no case is made out against them and criminal proceedings should not be continued - Finding of magistrate that there was no impersonation but material on record shows intention to cheat - Held, from perusal of the FIR it is clear that the dispute is of civil nature - No ingredient of Section 420 was attracted. As regards offence under Section 66A, same is inapplicable.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 41 , Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 , Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 420 , Section 34
Sections 41A [as inserted by Section 6 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009)], 41C - Arrest and detention - Violation of procedure - FIR filed under Section 420 and 34 IPC and Section 66D, Information Technology Act, 2000 by Cyber police, Bhopal - Petitioners arrested from Pune, allegedly, without presence of witnesses or mention of date arrest and by unauthorised officers - Taken to Bhopal in railway compartment for handicapped - Request of Petitioner no.2, a septuagenarian lady, for a doctor, denied and was made to lie on cold floor of the compartment - Allegedly both petitioners forced to pay Rs. 5 lacs to respondent no.3 (Dy. S.P. Cyber Cell) - Both alleged violation of procedure under Section 41 and claimed compensation. Held, inquiry conducted by Inspector General of Police revealed violation of procedure for arrest and seizure. Fact that Section 66A(b) of IT Act provides for maximum sentence of 3 years and section 420 provides 7 years as maximum sentence, necessitates the compliance of procedure under Section 41A. Under the section a person cannot be arrested only on the satisfaction that he has committed an offence. Police officer has to be further satisfied that arrest is necessary to prevent commission of further crime, disappearance of evidence, threatening or dissuading of a witness from disclosing facts or it is necessary for further investigation or ensuring his presence in court. If the arrest is not required under Section 41(1) , the court is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before police officer and if he complies with it, he is not to be arrested. In this case there was flagrant violation of procedure under Section 41 and guidelines issued in D.K. Basu's case. Two ladies (petitioners) were arrested and taken from Pune to Bhopal without being produced before local magistrate. Their dignity was seriously jeopardised and their liberty was curtailed in violation of Article 21. Rs. 5 lacs to be paid by State to each petitioner, as compensation.
Topic(s)-Sec. 41A of CrPC - Arrest and detention - Violation of procedure