Disposed

Ladlesab S/O Maktumsab Sumbad v. Director General and Ors.

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2017CCC/200011/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a contempt petition seeking action against a police officer for arrest without complying with Supreme Court directions in Arnesh Kumar. The Court held that contempt cannot be initiated without first establishing a violation of the directions. Since the complainant failed to prove any specific non-compliance and a circular existed, the petition was closed. Thin.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceeding is closed for now as the failure to comply with Supreme Court directions was not established.

Ladlesab S/O Maktumsab Sumbad Vs Director General and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶8

CCC No.200011/2016 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Ladlesab S/o MaktumsabSumbad, Age : 64 Years, Occ : Retired Teacher, R/o Almel, Tq. Sindagi, Dist Vijayapur.

¶11

…Complainant

¶12

(By Sri. Mahantesh Patil, Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Sri. Omprakash Director General and Inspector General of Police, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore-02.

¶15

¶16

S.N.Sidramappa, Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura-586101.

¶17

S. B. Malgond, Age : 36 Years, Occ : PSI, R/o Almel, Tq. Sindagi, Dist. Vijayapur-586101.

¶18

…Accused

¶19

(By Sri. R.V. Nadagouda, Additional Advocate General, for respondent Nos.1 to 3)

¶20

This CCC is filed under Section 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused No.3 for having deliberately and intentionally disobeyed, disrespected and for not having complied with the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar V/S State of Bihar and Another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Case 273) in Criminal Appeal No.1277/2014 dated: 02.07.2014, in accordance with law.

¶21

This CCC coming on for orders this day, Nagarathna J., made the following:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This contempt petition is filed by contending that

¶24

there has been deliberate and intentional disobedience of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶25

in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and

¶26

¶27

Another, [(2014) 8 SCC 273] (Arnesh Kumar) and therefore, contempt proceeding may be initiated against respondent No.3.

¶28

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar had issued directions with regard to the manner in which a person could be arrested and the conditions that have to be satisfied before the arrest is made under Section 41 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He submits that, the said directions have been issued keeping in mind life and liberty of the citizens and misuse of the power of arrest by the police officers. Learned counsel drew our attention to Paragraph No.11 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and submitted that directions have been issued to the State Government to comply with certain conditions and prerequisites before an arrest is made. That at Paragraph No.11.7 of the judgment, it

¶29

¶30

has been categorically held that, if any failure to comply with the directions is found, it could result in departmental action. Further, the police officer will also be liable to be punished for contempt of Court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that in the instant case, the complainant was arrested without compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, although, presently he is on bail. Therefore, the petitioner has instituted this contempt petition.

¶31

Learned Additional Advocate General has appeared pursuant to issuance of notice on 12.02.2016 by this Court. He would submit that even according to the complainant, the Inspector General of Police and Director General of Police, Bangalore, has issued Circular dated 23.07.2014, pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a copy of the said circular has been appended as

¶32

¶33

Annexure-E to the petition. Therefore, there has been compliance of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further contended that directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court have to be understood holistically and that the State Government has taken all steps for implementation of the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar. That as far as at Paragraph No.11.7 is concerned, he contended that if in a particular case, it is established that directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been complied with then that would mandate departmental action and thereafter, punishment for contempt would be considered. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that, without first establishing that there has been violation of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court even in the case of a particular complainant, who has been arrested, he cannot rush to this Court stating that there has been

¶34

¶35

contempt of the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, action may be initiated against respondent No.3. He further brought to our notice the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vitusah Oberoi and Others vs. Court of its Own Motion, [(2017) 2 SCC 314], by drawing our attention to Paragraph No.12 of that judgment, by pointing out that, if there is contempt of superior Court then the inferior Court cannot initiate proceedings for punishment of the contempt of the superior Court.

¶36

In response to this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although, the circular may have been issued pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar, however, the said directions as well as the Circular are conspicuously ignored and the police officers have been brazenly arresting citizens

¶37

¶38

under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. without compliance of the prerequisites, as stated in that Section as well as the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶39

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar, we find, at the out set, it is necessary to extract the said directions : -

¶40

“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:

¶41

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;

¶42

¶43

11.2 All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified subclauses under Section 41(1) (b) (ii) ;

¶44

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;

¶45

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;

¶46

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;

¶47

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;

¶48

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

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.”

¶53

¶54

The aforesaid directions were issued in the

¶55

context of the petitioner therein, who happened to be the husband of respondent No.2 therein, being unsuccessful in securing anticipatory bail, knocked the door of the Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered and took note of the fact that there is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of IPC was introduced with an avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A of IPC is a cognizable and non bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under that

¶56

¶57

provision. Therefore, there has been misuse of Section 498-A of IPC and the fact that, the police officers would brazenly use the power of arrest even innocent citizens. Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued the aforesaid directions. While issuing the said directions at Paragraph No.11.7, it observed that failure to comply with the directions would render the police officer liable for departmental action and further, they could be punished for contempt of Court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. When the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued a two fold direction in Paragraph No.11.7, it implies that the person arrested must first establish that there has been a failure to comply with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the concerned police officer, in which case he would be liable for departmental action. Once the non compliance of directions issued by the police officer is

¶58

¶59

established by a person, then such a person could also initiate contempt of court proceedings.

¶60

In the instant case, there is no such fact,

¶61

which has been established by the complainant either in his case or vis-à-vis any other case to the effect that there is non-compliance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, in this contempt proceeding, whether there is compliance or noncompliance of the directions cannot be established, as it is a question of fact which would require a trial. It is only after establishing that there has been failure on the part of the police officer to comply with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court can the petition for contempt of Court by any such officer be instituted. Under the circumstances, we find that the complainant herein, not having established before any judicial or other competent authority that there has been failure on the part of the police officer/s in

¶62

¶63

complying with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while arresting him, he cannot straight away initiate this contempt of court proceeding against respondent No.3 herein and seek to establish the same before this Court.

¶64

That apart, we find that the complainant has appended Annexure-E to this contempt petition, which is a Circular issued by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Bangalore and all the concerned authorities of the Department of Police, including Superintendent of Police of every District, in order to bring to their notice, the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by adverting to the fact that incase there are any violation in the said directions, contempt of the Court proceeding also could be initiated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that the State Government must instruct its police officers as to how the arrest has to be made

¶65

¶66

under Section 498-A of IPC. The Circular dated 23.07.2014 precisely refers to that aspect of the matter.

¶67

In the circumstances, we hold that the police officers have been instructed by virtue of Circular dated 23.07.2014, to comply with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If in any particular case, there has been non-compliance with the said directions, then it is only after establishing that fact could the concerned police officer be liable for departmental action or could result in contempt of court proceeding being instituted against the police officer. Therefore, at this stage, we see no good reason to consider further this contempt petition filed by the petitioner herein. Hence, contempt proceeding is closed.

¶68

¶69

Before parting with this case, we hope and

¶70

trust that respondent No.1 would ensure that the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision are complied with scrupulously.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

RSP

Ladlesab S/O Maktumsab Sumbad v. Director General and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ladlesab S/O Maktumsab Sumbad v. Director General and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeetendra Kumar Rajan Vs Dr. H.N Jagannatha Reddy

Smt.Uzma Roohi W/O Md. Ateek Ahmed D/O Akbar Ali Vs Iqbal Ahmed S/O Abdul Rehman

Mohammed Jeelani S/O Ruknuddin Vs the Special Land Acquisition Offcier and Anr.

Yallappa S/O Srirang Padwale and Ors. Vs Smt Jatinder Kaur W/O Premjeet Singh and Anr.

Maibubsab S/Jo Shalisab Bari Inamdar Vs Director General and Ros

Suresh S/O Irappa Malagar Vs Smt. Parvati W/O Suresh Malagar