Disposed

S.Bapuji, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Sept 2014CRLP/9503/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an obscure order, the court disposed of a quashing petition which actually sought directions to the police to comply with Section 41 Cr.P.C. regarding arrest procedures for Section 498-A offences, relying on Arnesh Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Investigating Agency to scrupulously follow Section 41 Cr.P.C. conditions before taking coercive steps against the petitioner.

S.Bapuji, Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9503 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The petitioner/accused filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of investigation in Crime No.224 of 2014 of Women Police Station, D.D, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.

¶5

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner filed the present petition for quashing of investigation in Crime No.224 of 2014, he restricts his prayer seeking a direction to the Investigating agency to follow the conditions stipulated in Section 41 Cr.P.C.

¶6

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶7

Section 41 Cr.P.C. reads as under:

¶8

When police may arrest without warrant.

¶9

(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person –

¶10

(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizance offence;

¶11

(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists than he has committed a cognizable offence 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, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely:-

¶12

(i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence;

¶13

(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary-

¶14

a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or

¶15

b) for proper investigation of the offence; or

¶16

c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or

¶17

d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or

¶18

e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured,

¶19

and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing; (Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.)

¶20

From the above, it is clear that the police officer, before arresting any person, has to be satisfied that such an arrest is necessary in terms of clauses (a) to (e) of Section 41(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. and he has to record reasons while making such arrest. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another (Crl.Appeal No.1277 of 2014), The Investigating Agency shall scrupulously follow the conditions stipulated in Section 41 Cr.P.C., before taking any coercive steps against the petitioner.

¶21

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this criminal petition, shall also stand closed.

¶22

__________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 1^st September, 2014 cbs

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶24

Criminal Petition No. 9503 of 2014

¶25

1^st September, 2014

¶26

cbs

S.Bapuji, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Bapuji, v. The State of Telangana

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Vijaywargia Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Sal Adithya Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Pundu Balamani Vs B.Gangaram

Thanagala Murali, Vs State of Telangana

Karnala Devamurthy Vs The State of Telangana

Komarada Narasimha Swamy Vs The State of Telangana