Sunil Kumar Chhabra vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3981 Jhar

       IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 Cr.M.P. No. 2338 of 2021

       Sunil Kumar Chhabra                             .....   ...     Petitioner
                                   Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. Anchal Priya                                  ..... ...      Opposite Parties
                                --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Veer Vikram Buxray, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.

------

02/ 25.10.2021 Heard Mr. Veer Vikram Buxray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 06.09.2021, whereby warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, in connection with Complaint Case No. 459 of 2021, subsequently registered as Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 172 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not received any notice and straightway warrant of arrest has been directed to be issued against the petitioner, only on the application of the I.O. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has received the notice, under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. and pursuant thereto, as admitted by the petitioner in paras-6, 7 and 8 of the petition, has appeared before the I.O. of the case.

4. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P., appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the same has been issued, when the petitioner is not appearing, pursuant to the notice.

5. On perusal of the entire ordersheet, it transpires that on 02.07.2021, the FIR was received in the concerned Court and thereafter straightway by order dated 06.09.2021, the warrant of arrest on the application of the I.O. has been issued. This case arises out of Section 498-A and other Sections of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry prohibition Act and for such cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law in the case of " Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar" reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein para-11, the following directions were issued:-

"11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and

mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following directions:-

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;

11.4. The Magistrate while authorising 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 authorise 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 to 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 5 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. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court."

6. Thus, in such type of cases, the Court and I.O. are required to follow the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Arnesh Kumar" (supra).

7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 06.09.2021, whereby warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, in connection with Complaint Case No. 459 of 2021, subsequently

registered as Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 172 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau, is hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau to proceed afresh in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Arnesh Kumar" (supra).

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-