Dismissed

Mohd. Sirajuddin v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Sept 2014CRLP/9876/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Petition, the petitioner accused sought to quash investigation or direct adherence to arrest conditions under Section 41 Cr.P.C. invoking Arnesh Kumar. The court dismissed the quashing prayer but directed the investigating agency to scrupulously follow the prescribed checklist and conditions before taking any coercive action against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the investigating agency to follow Section 41 Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines before taking coercive steps.

Mohd. Sirajuddin Vs The State of Telangana — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

Crl.P.No.9876 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner, who is accused No.1, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the investigation in Crime No.393 of 2012 of Kachiguda Police Station, Hyderabad, registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 409, 418 and 420 I.P.C.

¶5

2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner filed the present petition for quashing of investigation in Crime No.393 of 2012, he restricts his prayer seeking a direction to the Investigating Agency to follow the conditions stipulated in Section 41 Cr.P.C. and also the judgment of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another (Crl.Appeal No.1277 of 2014).

¶6

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

¶7

4. 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

¶10

and without a warrant, arrest any person-

¶11

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

¶12

cognisance offence;

¶13

(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or

¶14

credible information has been received, or a reasonable

¶15

suspicion exists that he has committed a cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less

¶16

than seven years or which may extend to seven years

¶17

whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are

¶18

satisfied, namely :-

¶19

(i) The police officer has reason to believe on the basis of

¶20

such complaint, information, or suspicion that such

¶21

person has committed the said offence;

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

b) for proper investigation of the offence; or

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his

¶28

reasons in writing;

¶29

(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.)

¶30

5. I n Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another

¶31

(Crl.Appeal No.1277 of 2014), the Apex Court held as under:

¶32

1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.

¶33

2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41 (1) (b) (ii);

¶34

3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

¶35

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;

¶36

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;

¶37

6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41 A of

¶38

Cr.P.C. 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;

¶39

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 High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

¶40

8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate high court.

¶41

The Apex Court also held that “ the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the 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.”

¶42

6. A perusal of the material placed on record would show that F.I.R. was registered on 01-12-2012. It is stated that till now Police have not proceeded further with the investigation.

¶43

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the investigating agency is directed to follow scrupulously the conditions stipulated in Section 41 Cr.P.C. and also the Judgment of the Apex Court referred to above before taking any coercive steps against the petitioner.

¶44

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

¶45

______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

¶46

09^th September, 2014

¶47

skmr

Mohd. Sirajuddin v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sirajuddin 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

The Regional Manager, Vs Kalindindi Eswari

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Yeraci Venkateswara Reddy

Soyam Bikshmaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Apsrtc Vs Ambipuri Suresh

Atluri Nageswara Rao, Vs The State of a. P

Kasanakurthi U.M. Veerabhadra Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh