Chattisgarh High Court
Deepak Tripathi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 July, 2021
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Writ Petition (CR) No. 176 of 2021
Deepak Tripathi Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others
08/07/2021 Shri T.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Sudeep Verma, Deputy Government Advocate for the State.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 8
SCC 273 has issued certain direction with regard to the investigation offence under
Section 498-A/34 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the following
direction:
11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police
officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do
not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to
ensure what we have observed above, we give the following
direction:
11.1 All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not
to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is
registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest
under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41
CrPC;
11.2 All police officers be provided with a check list containing
specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
11.3 The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and
furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest,
while forwarding / producing the accused before the Magistrate
for further detention;
2
11.4 The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused
shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms
aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate
will authorize detention;
11.5 The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the
Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the
case with a copy of the Magistrate which may be extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be
recorded in writing;
11.6 Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be
served on the accused within two weeks from the date of
institution of the case, which may be extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be
recorded in writing;
11.7 Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart
from rendering the police officers concerned liable for
departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for
contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having
territorial jurisdiction.
11.8 Authorizing detention without recording reasons as
aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for
departmental action by the appropriate High Court;
12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only
apply to the cases under Section 498-A IPC or Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases
where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven
years, whether with or without fine.
13. We direct that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the
Chief Secretaries as also the Director Generals of Police of all
the State Governments and the Union Territories and the
Registrar General of all the High Courts for onward transmission
and ensuring its compliance."
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class as well as Respondent No. 2 and 3 have also not complied
the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 11 of his judgment has directed that
Police Officer do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate should not
authorize detention casually and mechanically. It means that the Judicial Magistrate
First Class had to apply his mind and to have given reasons for detention of
Petitioner from 29.01.2020 to 12.02.2020 i.e. for 14 days. Thus, prima facie it
appears that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been violated by Judicial
Magistrate First Class. Therefore, it would be proper to call for an explanation from
the concerned Magistrate for violating the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
Accordingly, the Registry is directed to place matter before the Hon'ble Acting
Chief Justice for consideration or appropriate action against the concerned Judicial
Magistrate, on administrative side.
Issue fresh notice to Respondent No. 3. Process fee, as per rules.
List this matter after four weeks.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Brijmohan
