Arrest Proceedures and Rights

CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
Arrest in criminal jurisprudence signifies the detention of a person
under the authority of
law in connection with an alleged or expected violation of the law.
Police officers area entrusted
with wide powers of arrest under different circumstances, so are
several other classes of officers
who are entrusted with the enforcement of penal enactments.
Magistrates have powers of arrest
in certain circumstances and even private persons have the power to
arrest in extraordinary
circumstances. But the power to arrest has to be exercised with
intelligent discretion and caution.
More over, arrest is undoubtedly a serious interference with
fundamental right of the
personal liberty of the citizen, which includes an arrestee or an
accused, guaranteed under
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and it has to be strictly in
accordance with the
law, so as to be escaped the arresting authority from the punishment.
(A)MEANING OF ARREST:The term arrest is not defined in any Statute. However, the Dictionary
of Law of Lexicon
has given a meaning of the term arrest as an apprehension of a
person by legal authority
resulting in depreviation of his liberty. In English law, arrest consists of
the actual seizure or
touching of a persons body with a view to his detention. Further, in
State of Punjab Vs Ajaib
Singh, AIR 1953 SC 10, the Supreme Court has defined the term arrest
occurring in Article 22
of the Constitution of India as indicating physical restraint of a person
under the authority of
the law in respect of an alleged accusation or default or violation of the
law.
In ordinary parlance the terms arrest and custody are using as
synonyms. But literally
they suggest a different meaning. Arrest means restraint of liberty of
the person. It is a mode of
taking a person into custody. Custody means immediate charge and
control exercised by person
under authority of law. Taking a person into custody is followed after
arrest of the concerned
person. In, Directorate of Enforcement Vs Deepak Mahajan AIR 1994
SC 1775, the Supreme
Court laid down that taking of a person into judicial custody is followed
after the arrest of the
person by the Magistrate on appearance or surrender. In every arrest
there is custody but not
vice-versa and custody and arrest are not synonymous terms.
(B) PURPOSE OF ARREST:The purposes of arrest are twofold: the first land main purpose is to
ensure the presence
1

of the accused at trial; the second is to prevent him from committing a

serious crime (cognizable
offence).
Arrest of the offender especially of the dangerous and violent type
does have a highly
beneficial effect on the morale of the society. Timely arrest of the
accused persons in serious
cases is essential step in investigation; failure in this regard
considerably weakens the position of
the prosecution.
(C) HUMAN RIGHTS VIS--VIS INDIAN CONSTITUTION ON
ARREST
(i) CONCEPT AND PHILOSPHY OF HUMAN RIGHTS:Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the U.N. on 10th
December,1948 attach
importance to the protection of life and liberty of the individual and put
emphasis on respect for
human dignity. It is now an International Law and Constitutional
provision of protecting civil,
political, social and cultural rights of the individual and community
without discrimination of
race, colour, religion and caste under the umbrella of the U.N. and the
Indian constitution.
As per the provisions of human rights, life and dignity of the individual
can not be
encroached to taken away by the Government or by its machineries or
by any dominant group
excepting by the due procedure established by law. All are equal before
law. No one will be
subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No accused or person should
be subjected to inhuman
and cruel treatment in the hands of police, Magistrate and Jail
administration. Thus, provisions
of human rights are concerned with the rightful attitudes in the
administration of criminal justice
as well as humanitarian approach in the administration of the Criminal
law.
There are as many as 30 articles in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights by the
U.N. Articles 3-21 deal with the civil and political rights of the
individual, Articles 22-27 deal
with economic, social and cultural rights of the individual and groups of
the individuals.
(ii) INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS ON ARREST:
Our Constitution makers through part 111 and 1V of the
Constitution gave expression
to the concept of human rights by providing fundamental rights to the
citizen and even to the
accused in certain cases [e.g.; Article 20 (3)]. As a matter of fact, out
of 30 articles of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, at least 23 Articles have
been covered and
incorporated in the Constitution of India.
(iii) PROTECTIONS OF AN ARRESTEE UNDER THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION AS
WELL AS UNDER THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN
2

RIGHTS
(1948)
Safeguards and protections of an arrested person have been
incorporated in the Indian
constitution under Articles 21 and 22 as well as in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
(1948) under Articles 3, 5 & 9.
(a) PROTECTION OF AN ARRESTEE UNDER THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION
Articles 21 and 22 of the constitution of India are the essence of the
fundamental rights
with respect of the personal liberty of a citizen which includes an
arrestee or an accused. These
two articles are discussed as follows:As per article 21, protection of life and personal liberty has been
granted to every one
without any discrimination on ground of caste, race, religion, language
and sex. Accordingly, no
one shall e deprived o f his life or personal liberty except by adopting
due procedure established
buy law. No one will be compelled to live a subhuman condition. Every
one has right to live as
human being, necessary for his physical and human existence.
Article 22 provides safeguards and protects individual from arbitrary
arrest and detention.
Its various clauses declare clearing that1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without
being informed the grounds
of such arrest nor shall he be detained the right to consult, and to be
defended by a legal
practitioner of his choice.
2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be
produced before the nearest
court of Magistrate within 24 hours excluding the journey time and no
such person shall be
detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a
Magistrate.
In, State of Maharastra Vs. Shoba Ram, Air 1966 SC 1910, the Supreme
Court held
that as soon as an arrest is made in respect of citizen, operation of
Article 22 of the Constitution
of India starts operation and he may take immediate step to regain his
freedom.
(b) PROTECTION OF AN ARRESTEE UNDER THE UNIVERSAL
DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1948)
Article 3 says everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
person.
Article 5 says no one shall be subjected to torture or to a cruel in
human or degrading
treatment or punishment.
Article 9 lays down, that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest,
detention or
exile.
CHAPTER- II
PROCEDURE FOR EFFECTING ARREST
Section 46, Cr.P.C. lays down the procedure for effecting of an arrest.
3

According to
section 46, whether the arrest to be made is with a warrant or without
a warrant, it is necessary
that in Making such an arrest the police officer or another person
making the same actually
touches or confines the body of the person to be arrested unless there
be a submission to the
custody by word of arrest is not an arrest, unless the person sought to
be arrested submits to the
process and goes with the arresting officer. Any attempt by it self
punishable under section 223
I.P.C.
The importance of the precise arrest procedure becomes obvious
while determining the
question as to whether at a particular time a person was under arrest
or not.
Under section 46 (2), the police officer or any other person arresting
may use all means
necessary to effect arrest if the person to be arrested evades or
forcibly resists the arrest. use all
means is a very wide term and recognising this aspect section 46[3],
sets the limit at this, i.e.
the arresting authority will not have the right to cause the death of the
person to be arrested
unless the latter is acused of an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life.
The words may use all means appearing in section 46 (2), are to be
read with section
49, which say that an arrested person shall not be subjected to more
restraint than is necessary to
prevent his escape.
As mentioning the words may use all means in section 46(2) the
escorting police party
is caused some times for use of hand cuffing, particularly, when the
party is brining the under
trail prisoners from jail to the court and vice-versa. In this context, the
escorting police party
shall be know the guidelines of the Supreme Court on use of hand
cuffings.
(A)GUIDELINES OF THE SUPREME COURT ON HAND CUFFINGS:
The Honble Supreme Court has given its Judgments in the following
cases on the subject
of hand cuffings as to when they are to be used and not be used.
(i) WHEN TO USE THE HAND CUFFINGSIn
Prem Shankar Shukla Vs Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC.1535, the
Supreme
Court held that the handcuffs can be used by the escorting police party
if the prisoner is
dangerous and desperate, or if the prisoner is likely to break out of
custody or play the vanishing
tricks. The escorting party must from the opinion on the basis of
antecedents of the prisoner.
Further, in Sunil Gupta Vs State of M.P. 1990 SCC (Cr.) 440, the
Supreme Court held
that the escorting authority should record contemporaneously the
reasons for hand cuffing under
4

trial prisoner even in extreme cases and intimate the court, so that the
court may consider the
circumstances and issue necessary direction to the escort party.
(ii) NO HAND CUFF IN GENERAL
In Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675, the Supreme
Court
maintained that the hand cuffs should not be used in routine manner.
The minimum freedom of
movement which even on under trail prisoner is entitled to under
Article 19 of the constitution,
can not be cut down cruelly by application of handcuff or other hoops.
Further, in Prem Shankar Shukla Vs Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC
1535,
Supreme Court held that the person can not be handcuffed only
because he is charged with grave
offence not only for the convenience of the escort party. The rules,
regulation and manuals of
various statutes authorizing the Police to use handcuff have been
struck down as violative of
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
In the same above mentioned case (Prem Shanker Shukla) the
Supreme Court has laid
down certain alternatives of handcuffs so as to abolish the practice of
use of handcuffs: The
alternatives are;
i) Increase in the number of escorts;
ii) Arm the escort party, if necessary;
iii) Give special Training to escort party;
iv) Transport of prisoners in protected vehicle.
By adopting the above methods, the handcuffing is virtually abolished
in the State of
Tamil Nadu.
CHAPTER -III
POWER TO ARREST
Arrest may be effected with warrant or without warrant. Arrest with
warrant is dealt with
in chapter VI under sections 70 to 81 of Cr.P.C. so, the scope of the
present chapter is broadly
confined to arrest without warrant. The following officers/personnel are
empowered to arrest
without warrant Viz.(A) Any Police officer , (B) The officer-in-Charge of a
Police Station (C)
Private person (D) Magistrate (E) Armed force Personnel.
1.(A) Any Police Oficer, of whatever rank , may without an Order from a
Magistrate and
without a warrant, a person on fulfillment of the conditions laid down in
section, 41,42, 123 (6),
151 and 432 (3) of Cr. P. C.
(1) Under Section 41 ( i );
(a) any person concerned in cognizable offence or against whom
reasonable
complaint made or credible information received or reasonable
suspicion exists.
(b) any person having implement of house of house breaking without
excuse.
(c) any proclaimed offender.
5

(d) any person suspected to be in possession of stolen property.

(e) any person who obstructs a police officer on duty , or who has
escaped or
attempts to escape from custody.
(f) any deserter from Army , Navy or Air Force .
(g) for commission of offence out side India , if it is an offence in India .
(h) any released convict committing a breach of rule made under
section 356 (5)
Cr.P.C.
(i) for whose arrest requisition has been received from another police
officer.
(2) Under section 42, when a non conizable offence is being
committed by the accused in
his view and the accused refuses to give his name and address or
gives a false name or
address.
(3) Under section 123 (6), when the person released violates the
condition of releases .
(4) Under section 151, to prevent the commission of a cognizable
offence, if designed by the
person.
(5) Under section 432 (3), any person whose suspension of remission
of sentence has been
cancelled by State Govt.; owing to his failure to fulfil any condition.
(6) Under the Local and Special Laws which authorize the arrest
without warrant, e.g. U/s 34
of the police Act 1861, U/S 64 of the Forest Act 1927, U/S 20 of the
Arms Act 1959, U/S
30 of the Explosive Act 1884, U/S 59 ( 2 ) and 3 of the Delhi Police Act
1978, U/S 14 of
the Foreigners Act, 1946 and U/S 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939.
(B) THE OFFICER IN CHARGER OF POLICE STATION Can arrest or
cause to be arrested without warrant under the following
circumstance :(1) Any habitual offender or any person who is taking precaution to
conceal himself
with a view to commit cognizable offence (Sec. 41 (2) )
(2) To dispurse any member of unlawful assembly (Sec. 129 (2)),
(3) In the interest of Investigation of a cognizable offence (Sec. 157)
(4) When witnesses refuse to attend court or execute a bond (Sec. 171)
(5) In exercise of the powers as mentioned at A.
(C) PRIVATE PERSON:-Under section 43 any private person can make
an arrest or
caused to be arrested without warrant any person who in his presence
commits a nonbailable
and cognizable offence or any proclaimed offender.
(D) MAGISTRATE:-Under Section 44 any Executive Magistrate or Judicial
Magistrate
can arrest or cause to be arrested a person without warrant on
fulfillment of the following
conditions(
1) Offence (any) must be committed in his presence;
(2) It must be within his local Jurisdiction;
(3) The Magistrate is competent to issue warrant of arrest for the arrest
of such person.
(E) ARMED FORCE OFFICERSIn
6

the absence of Executive Magistrate any Commissioned officer or

Gazetted officer of
the Armed Forces can arrest any person in order to disperse any
unlawful assembly for public
security (Secs. 130(2) & 131)
II PROTECTION FROM ARRESTThe
following personnel have been protected from being arrested under the
Indian
Constitution as well as under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
1. The president and Governors are immuned from arrest in any
process issued by any
court during their tenure of office (Art.361 (3) of the Indian
Constitution).
2. Members of the Armed Forces can not be arrested without sanction
of the Central
Govt. for any thing done by them in discharge of official duty (Sec. 45
of
Cr.P.C.).
3. The Judicial officers can not be arrested without approval of either
the District
and Session Judge or Chief Justice of the High Court as the case may
be.
(Judicial officers Service Association Vs State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC
(2176))
4. Members of the Parliament or Assemblies can not be arrested
without prior
permission of the speaker when they are in the precincts of the houses
business
(Proceedings). If arrest is outside precincts, then send intimation to the
speaker.
(III) PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS OF A FEMALE ACCUSED ON
ARREST AND SEARCH.
The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has provided certain safeguards
under the following
circumstance to protect the honour of the female accused in respect of
arrest and search.
1) If ingress to the place (search of place entered by person sought to
be arrested) can
not be obtained under sub section (1) and such place is an apartment
in the actual
occupancy of a female (not being the person to be arrested) the Police
officer before
search of that place shall give a notice to the said female to withdraw
[Sec.47 (2)].
2) The search (personal) of a female shall be made by a female with
strict regard to
decency [Sec.51 (2) &100(3)].
3) A female accused shall be examined only under the supervision of a
female registered
medical practitioner [Sec.53 (2)].
4) A District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the
First Class may
give immediate relief of restoration to a female, above or below18
years, who is in
un-lawful detention for unlawful purpose (Sec.98).
In, Christian Community welfare council of India vs. Govt. of
7

Maharastra, 1995 Cr.

L.J.4223 (Bom.), The Bombay High Court has directed to the State
Govt. to constitute a
committee to see that females be not arrested without presence a lady
Constable and no female
be arrested after sun-set and further separate lock ups be provided for
them
CHAPTER-IV
PROCEDURE AFTER ARREST
The procedure to be followed after arrest is laid down in different
circumstances by
different sections of the Cr.P.C. The procedure is as follows:1) The Police officer making arrest has to inform the arrested person of
the grounds of arrest
(Art. 22 of the constitution & Sec. 50 of the Cr.P.C. )
2) He has to inform the arrested person of his right to be realized on
bail if the offence is a
bailable one (Sec.50).
3) The Police officer making arrest, if no bail is given, shall conduct a
personal search on
arrestee and prepare a memo about it. He shall take all articles other
then necessary wearing
apparel into possession. A receipt showing the articles so seized shall
be given to such an
arrestee. Where an arrestee is a woman the search shall be made by
an other woman with
strict regard to decency (Sec.51). If the articles so seized are offensive
weapons, he has to
send them to the court before which an arrestee is to be produced
(Sec.52).
4) He can get an arrestee medically examined to afford evidence of
commission of offence and
can use necessary force for such examination (Sec.53).
5) He has to produce the arrested person before a Magistrate without
unnecessary delay and not
to detain an arrestee beyond 24 hours (excluding journey time) without
obtaining order of the
Magistrate (Secs. 56&57).
6) An arrestee shall not be subjected to more restraint than is
necessary to prevent his escape
(e.g. handcuffs is one method of restraint)-(Sec.49).
7) Officersincharge of Police Station shall report to the District
Magistrate or Sub- Divisional
Magistrate of all arrests made without warrant(Sec. 58).
8) The person arrested by Police shall not be discharge except on his
own bond or on bail or
under the orders of a Magistrate (Sec.59).
The Police officer making arrest has an obligation to adopt the above
mentioned
procedure after arrest
CHAPTER-V
RIGHTS OF ARRESTED PERSON
The following are the rights of an arrested person guaranteed under
the Indian
Constitution as well as under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
(1) RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE GROUNDS FOR ARREST:8

In every case of arrest with or without a warrant the person arresting

shall communicate
to the arrested person, without delay, the grounds for his arrest (Art,
22 (1) of the Constitution of
India, Secs. 50 (1), 55, 75 of Cr.P.C.).
(2) RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF RIGHT TO BAIL:The arrested person must be informed of his right to be released on
bail when he is
arrested without warrant in a bailable offence (Sec. 50 (2) & (436)).
(3) RIGHT OF NOT BEING DETAINED FOR MORE THEN 24 HOURS
WITHOUT JUDICIAL SCRUTINY:In case of every arrest the person making the arrest is required to
produce the arrested
person before the Magistrate within 24 hours from the time of arrest.
The time required for
journey from the place of arrest to the court of magistrate will be
excluded in computation of the
duration of 24 hours (Art. 22 (2) of the Constitution and section 57),
(4) RIGHT TO CONSULT A LEGAL PRACTITIONER:Both the Constitution and the provisions of Cr.P.C. recognize the right
of every arrested
person to consult a legal practitioner of his choice (Art. 22 (1) and Sec.
303)
(5) RIGHT OF AN ARRESTED INDIGENT PERSON TO FREE LEGAL
AID AND TO BE INFORMED ABOUT ITIn,
Khatri (II) Vs, State of Bihar, (1981) I S.C.C. 627, the Supreme Court
has held
that the State is under a constitutional mandate (implicit in Art,21) to
provide fee legal aid to an
indigent accused person, and that this constitutional obligation to
provide legal aid does not arise
only when the trial commences but also when the accused is for the
first time produced before
the Magistrate as also when he is remanded from time to time.
The Supreme Court has gone a step further in, Suk Das VS Union
Territory of
Arunchal Pradesh, (1986)2 S.C.C 401, where in it has been
categorically laid down that unless
refused, failure to provide free legal aid to an indigent accused would
vitiate the trial, entailing
setting aside of the conviction and sentence. The accused shall be
assigned a pleader for his
defence, by the court, at the expense of the state when he has not
sufficient means to engage a
pleader (Sec. 304).
(6) RIGHT TO BE EXAMINED BY A MEDICAL PRACTIONERThe
Magistrate can direct for medical examination of the arrested person
on fulfillment
of the following conditions; (a) the medical examination will disprove
the commission of any
offence by him or (b) establish the commission of any other offence
against his body (Sec. 54)
CHAPTER-VI
CONSEQUENCES OF ILLEGAL ARREST AND USE OF THIRD
DEGREE METHOD BY THE POLICE
(A) CONSEQUENCES OF ILLEGAL ARREST:- An arrest which is not
9

authorized by the Law is an illegal arrest . The following are the

consequences of illegal arrest.
1) If the arrest is illegal, the person who is being so arrested can
exercise the right of private
defence in accordance with , and subject to, the provisions contained
in sections 96 to
106 of the I.P.C.
2) If the public servant having authority to make arrests, knowingly
exercises that authority
the contravention of Law and effect and section 220 of IPC. Apart from
this special
provision , any person who illegally arrests another is punishable under
section 342 of
the I.P.C. for wrongful confinement.
3) A civil suit for damages may be instituted against the arresting
officer for illegal arrest,
false imprisonment, illegal confinement etc. after giving notice to the
Government and
the concerned officer under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4) A trial will not be void simply because the provision relating to arrest
have not been fully
complied with.
5) A writ of Habeas Corpus can be filed either in the Supreme Court
under Article 32 or in
the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for release
of the person
illegally arrested or detained in custody by any authority .
(B) USE OF THIRD DEGREE METHOD BY THE POLICE AND ITS
EFFECTS:
Use of third degree method in course of interrogation and investigation
means obtaining
confession from the accused under coercion and physical torture.
Police is no doubt, under a
legal duty and has legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to
interrogate him during the
investigation of an offence but law does not permit use of third degree
method or torture of
accused in custody during investigation and investigation with a view
to solve the crime.
Frequent threats and insistence on answering is a form of pressure,
especially in the atmosphere
of police station (under physical torture) is an example of third degree
method.
EFFECTS:
1) As per sections 330 and 331 of IPC Physical torture of an accused
during interrogation is
an offence and hence punishable from 7 to 10 years imprisonment.
2) Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article
20(3) of the Indian
Constitution, Section 29 of the Police Act, 1861 and Rule 3 of the Police
code of Conduct
forbid such physical torture on the accused.
CHAPTER: VII
OBSERVANCE OF Dos AND DONT s BY THE POLICE
OFFICER REGARDING ARREST
(A) Dos:
10

The police officer who makes an arrest has an obligation and a duty to
observe the
following mandatory provisions, soon after arrest is made, under the
Criminal Procedure Code,
1973:1) The Police Officer making arrest; shall conduct a personal search on
arrestee and shall
take all articles other than necessary wearing apparel and place them
in safe custody. The
Police Officer should prepare a receipt showing the articles so seized
and a copy of the
same shall be given to an arrestee. Where an arrestee is a woman the
search shall be made
by another woman with strict regard to decency (Sec.51).
2) When the articles seized, u/s 51, are offensive weapons the
arresting officer has to send
them to the Court before which an arrestee is to be produced (Sec.52).
3) Arrest should be entered in an arrest card by the person who made
the arrest. It should
also be noted in the general diary with all particulars. Time of arrest
should be
particularly noted. Any articles found on the person also should be
entered.
4) The Police Officer making arrest has to inform an arrestee of the
grounds of arrest and of
his right to be released on bail if the offence is a bailable one (Sec.50).
5) Arrestee should be produced before the magistrate within 24 hours
from the time of arrest
(Sec.57).
6) The Police officer making arrest has a reason to believe that on
examination of an
arrested person body, by the registered Medical Practioner, which will
afford evidence as
to the commission of an offence he should send the arrested person to
medical
practitioner for examination (Sec.53).
7) The person arrested by police shall not be discharged except on his
own bond or on bail
or under the orders of a Magistrate (Sec.59).
8) In, Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U. P.-AIR 1994 SC. 1349 the Supreme
Court issued
the following guidelines for the police officers to observe for effective
enforcement of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the
Indian Constitution.
i) The Police Officer shall inform the arrested person when he is in
custody that is
entitled if he desires to have one friend; relative or other person, who
is known to
him or likely to take an interest in his welfare; told as far as practicable
that he has
been arrested and where he is being detained.
ii) The entry shall be required to be made in the general diary of Police
Station as to
who informed of the arrest.
(B) DONT S:11

A survey conducted by the police commission and research studies

reveal that the police
invariably employ methods (which should not be in practice), such as1) Employ unfair methods to elicit confessions;
2) Use third degree methods in police lock-ups;
3) Detain the arrested persons beyond the statutorily permitted 24
hours in their custody;
4) Refuse the arrested persons to get in touch with legal practitioners
of their choice;
5) Make informal, illegal and arbiter arrest;
6) Commit custodial torture, rape and murder;
7) Humiliate people and degrade persons in custody;
8) Make the detainees to starve and make them to resort to an
undesirable option of committing
suicide;
9) Handcuff the arrested and chain them in lock-ups or parade them in
public in chains when
they are taken to courts etc.
It is needless to say that these ways of exercising authority are wholly
opposed to human
rights and human dignity.
CHAPTER: VIII
RECENT CASE- LAW ON ARREST
(1) In, SHEELA BARSE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, (1983) 2 S.C.C. 96;
the
Supreme Court held that the arrested accused person must be
informed by the magistrate
about his right to be medically examined in terms of sections 54 of the
Cr.P.C.
(2) In, ARVIND SINGH BAGGA Vs. STATE OF U.P & OTHERS,1995(1) 173,
The
Supreme Court has deprecated the high handedness, illegal arrest and
illegal detention of
female witness (named as Nidhi) in custody and the state of U.P. was
directed to take
immediate steps to launch criminal prosecution against all the Police
Officers involved in
the sordid affair. The Supreme Court has also directed the state of U.P.
to pay
compensation of Rs. 10.000/-to Nidhi and Rs. 5.000/- to each of the
other persons, who
were illegally detained and humiliated for no fault of theirs.
(3) In, ANUP SINGH Vs STATE OF HIMCHAL PARDESH, AIR 1995 SC
1941. The
Supreme Court held that the Officer In charge of Police Station, who
was not physically
present all the time during confinement of deceased in the police
station, can not escape
his criminal liability by passing the buck on the constables ( who were
actually
responsible for the death of the deceased), because criminal deeds
committed by the
constables are deemed to have been committed with his tacit consent
and connivance.
Accordingly, officer in charge of police station, (Aunp Singh, ASI) was
convicted along
12

with the two constables.

(4) In, D.K. BASU Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL, 1997 (1) J.T, (SC) I, The
Honble
Supreme Court has given the following guidelines, for the police
officers regarding arrest
of persons, when the Executive Chairman, Legal Aid Services, West
Bengal addressed a
letter to the Chief Justice of India drawing his attention to certain news
items published in
various news papers relating to custodial violence. The letter was
treated as a writ
application under Article 32 of the Constitution and the case was
treated as a public
interest litigation. The guide lines are as follows:I. The Police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the
interrogation of the arrestee
should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags
with their designations. The
particulars of all such police personnels who handle interrogation of
the arrestee must be
recorded in a register.
II. That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall
prepare a memo of arrest at
the time of arrest and such memo shall be arrested by at least one
witness, who may be either a
member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the
locality from where the
arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall
contain the time and date
of arrest.
III. A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in
custody in a police statione
interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one
friend or relative or other
person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed,
as soon as practicable,
that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place,
unless the attesting
witness of the memo of arrest is him self such a friend or a relative of
the arrestee.
IV. The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must
be notified by the police
where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives out side the
district or town through the
Legal Aid Organization in the district and the police station of the area
concerned
telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
V. The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have some
one informed of his arrest
or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
VI. An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention
regarding the arrest of the person
which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who
has been informed of
the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose
custody the arrestee is.
13

VII. The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at

the time of his arrest and major
and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at
the time. The
Inspection Memo must be signed both by the arrestee and the police
officer effecting the
arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
VIII. The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a
trained doctor every 48 hours of
his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors
appointed by Director,
Health Service of the concerned State or Union Territory. Director,
Health Services should
prepare such a panel for all Tehsils and Districts as well.
IX. Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest referred
to above, should be sent to
the IIIaqa Magistrate for his record.
X. The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during
interrogation, though not throughout
the interrogation.
XI. A police control room should be provided at all district and state
headquarters, where
information regarding the arrest and the place of the custody of the
arrestee shall be
communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of
effecting the arrest and at
the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice
board.
XII. Failure to comply with the requirements herein above mentioned
shall apart from rendering the
concerned official liable for departmental action, also render him liable
to be punished for
contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of court may be
instituted in any High
Court of the Country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
These requirements are in addition to the Constitutional and statutory
safeguards and do
not detract from various other direction given by the courts from time
to time in connection with
safeguarding all the rights and dignity of the arrestee.
Further, the Supreme Court has directed that the amount of
compensation, to the victim,
as awarded by the writ court and paid by the state to redress the
wrong done, may in a given case
be adjusted against any amount which may be already paid to the
claimant by way of damages in
civil suit.
CHAPTER IX
CONCLUSION
Police Officers are entrusted with wider powers of arresting a person
without warrant.
But this power of arrest must be in accordance with Law not otherwise.
Arrest is undoubtedly a
serious interference with the fundamental right of the personal liberty
of the citizen, which
includes an arrestee or an accused, guaranteed under Articles 21 and
14

22 of the Constitution of
India and it has to be strictly in accordance with the Law so as to be
escaped, the arresting
authority, from punishment.
In order to exercise effectively the power of arrest by a police officer,
he must be well
versed with legal provisions relating to arrest, Supreme Courts
guidelines and its decisions on
arrest up to date, particularly, when arresting women, children, judicial
officers, M.L.As &
M.Ps and public servants etc. Moreover, the police should enforce the
provisions relating to
arrest firmly and impartially without fear of favour, malice or
vindictiveness. And also the
police should project their image as the protector of Human Rights.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
TEXT BOOKS
Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal : The Code of Criminal Procedure
R. S. Verma : Custodial Death & Human Rights
K. Krishna Murthi : Police Diaries & Statements etc.
ARTICLES
Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy : Human Rights perspectives-day-today
Policing (C.B.I. Bulletin, June
1997).
Dr. B. R. Sahay : Human Rights and Indian Constitution
(C.B.I. Bulletin, March 1999).
REFERENCE OF CASE LAW
(1) State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh, AIR 1953 SC 10.
(2) Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan, AIR 1994 SC 1775.
(3) State of Maharastra Vs. Shoba Ram, AIR 1966 SC 1910.
(4) Prem Shankar Shukla Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR, 1980 SC 1535.
(5) Sunil Gupta Vs. State of M.P. 1990 SCC (Cr.) 440.
(6) Sunil Batra Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675.
(7) Christian Community Welfare Council of India Vs. Govt. of
Maharastra, 1995 Cr. L.J.
4223 (Bom.)
(8) Judicial officers Service Association Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 19991
SC 2176.
(9) Khatri (II) Vs. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627.
(10) Suk Das Vs. Union Terrority of Arunachal Pardesh (1986) 2 SCC
401.
(11) Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P., AIR, 1994 SC 1349.
(12) Sheela Barse Vs. State of Maharastra, (1983) SCC 96.
(13) Arvind Singh Bagga Vs. State of U.P. and others 1995 (1) SCJ 173.
(14) Anup Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1995 SC 1941.
(15) D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, 1997 (1) J.T. (SC) 1.
QUESTIONS
1. What is meant by arrest and custody? Is arrest different from
Custody?
2. What are the safeguards of on arrestee under the Indian Constitution
as well as under the
universal declaration of human rights (1948)?
3. Write a critical note on hand cuffings.
4. Who are empowered to arrest a person without warrant under the
Cr.P.C. 1973?
5. What are the procedural safeguards of a female accused on arrest
15

and search?
6. Can An M.P. or M.L.A. be arrested? If so, state procedure of it?
7. Explain the rights of an arrestee?
8. What are the consequences of illegal arrest and use of third degree
method by the Police?
9. Explain the procedure after arrest?
10. What are the Dos and Donts on the part of police officer, to
observe, regarding arrest?
11. What are the guidelines for the police officers regarding arrest,
which are enumerated by
the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal?
Annexure 1
1. FORM OF ARREST WARRANT
(See Section 70 Cr. P. C.)
To (name & designation of the person or persons who is or are to
execute the
warrant).
Whereas (name of accused) of (address) stands charged with the
offence of
(state the offence), you are here be directed the said and
to produce
him before me. Herein fail not.
Dated, this day . 19.
(Seal of the court) (Signature)
Annexure 11
ENDORSEMENT OF ARREST WARRANT
( See Section 71 )
This warrant may be endorsed as follows :If the said ______________________ shall give bail himself in the sum of
rupees _____________________________ with one surety in the sum of
rupees
______________________________ (or two sureties each in the sum of
rupees
__________________________) to attend before me on the
__________________
Day of _________________ and to continue so to attend until otherwise
directed
by me, he may be released.
Dated this ____________________ day of ________________ 19_______.
(Seal of the Court)
(Signature)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JOGINDER KUMAR
Vs.
STATE OF U.P.
16

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/04/1994

BENCH:
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ)
MOHAN, S. (J)
ANAND, A.S. (J)
CITATION:
1994 AIR 1349 1994 SCC (4) 260
JT 1994 (3) 423 1994 SCALE (2) 662

Judgement
ORDER
1. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The
petitioner is a young man of 28 years of age who has completed his
LL.B. and has enrolled himself as an advocate. The Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, Respondent 4 called the
petitioner in his office for making enquiries in some case. The
petitioner on 7-1-1994 at about 10 o'clock appeared personally along
with his brothers Shri Mangeram Choudhary, Nahar Singh Yadav,
Harinder Singh Tewatia, Amar Singh and others before Respondent 4.
Respondent 4 kept the petitioner in his custody. When the brother of
the petitioner made enquiries about the petitioner, lie was told that the
petitioner will be set free in the evening after making some enquiries in
connection with a case.
2. On 7-1-1994 at about 12.55 p.m., the brother of the petitioner being
apprehensive of the intentions of Respondent 4, sent a telegram to the
Chief Minister of U.P. apprehending his brother's implication in some
criminal case and also further apprehending the petitioner being shot
dead in fake encounter.
3. In spite of the frequent enquiries, the whereabouts of the petitioner
could not be located. On the evening of 7-1-1994, it came to be known
that petitioner is detained in illegal custody of 5th respondent, SHO,
P.S. Mussoorie.
4. On 8-1-1994, it was informed that the 5th respondent was keeping
the petitioner in detention to make further enquiries in some case. So
far the petitioner has not been produced before the Magistrate
concerned. Instead the 5th respondent directed the relatives of the
petitioner to approach the 4th respondent SSP, Ghaziabad, for release
of the petitioner.
5. On 9-1-1994, in the evening when the brother of petitioner along
with relatives went to P.S. Mussoorie to enquire about the well being of
his brother, it was found that the petitioner had been taken to some
undisclosed destination. Under these circumstances, the present
petition has been preferred for the release of Joginder Kumar, the
petitioner herein.
6. This Court on 11-1-1994 ordered notice to State of U.P. as well as
SSP, Ghaziabad.
7. The said Senior Superintendent of Police along with petitioner
appeared before this Court on 14-1-1994. According to him, the
petitioner has been released. To question as to why the petitioner was
detained for a period of five days, he would submit that the petitioner
was not in detention at all. His help was taken for detecting some
cases relating to abduction and the petitioner was helpful in
cooperating with the police. Therefore, there is no question of
detaining him. Though, as on today the relief in habeas corpus petition
cannot be granted yet this Court cannot put an end to the writ petition
on this score. Where was the need to detain the petitioner for five
days; if really the petitioner was not in detention, why was not this
17

Court informed are some questions which remain unanswered. If really,

there was a detention for five days, for what reason was he detained?
These matters require to be enquired into. Therefore, we direct the
learned District Judge, Ghaziabad to make a detailed enquiry and
submit his report within four weeks from the date of receipt of this
order.
8. The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time, the
crime rate is also increasing. Of late, this Court has been receiving
complaints about violation of human rights because of indiscriminate
arrests. How are we to strike a balance between the two?
9. A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of
arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges, on
the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities on
the other; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and privileges
of the single individual and those of individuals collectively; of simply
deciding what is wanted and where to put the weight and the
emphasis; of deciding which comes first the criminal or society, the law
violator or the law abider; of meeting the challenge which Mr Justice
Cardozo so forthrightly met when he wrestled with a similar task of
balancing individual rights against society's rights and wisely held that
the exclusion rule was bad law, that society came first, and that the
criminal should not go free because the constable blundered.
In People v. Defore Justice Cardozo observed:
"The question is whether protection for the individual would not be
gained at a disproportionate loss of protection for society. On the one
side is the social need that crime shall be repressed. On the other, the
social need that law shall not be flouted by the insolence of office.
There are dangers in any choice. The rule of the Aclams case (People v.
Adams) strikes a balance between opposing interests. We must hold it
to be the law until those organs of government by which a change of
public policy is normally effected shall give notice to the courts that
change has come to pass."
10. To the same effect is the statement by Judge Learned Hand, in Fried
Re3:
"The protection of the individual from oppression and abuse by the
police and other enforcing officers is indeed a major interest in a free
society; but so is the effective prosecution of crime, an interest which
at times seems to be forgotten. Perfection is impossible; like other
human institutions criminal proceedings must be a compromise."
The quality of a nation's civilisation can be largely measured by the
methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal law.
11. This Court in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani4 (AIR at p.1032) quoting
Lewis Mayers stated: (SCC p. 433, para 15)
"The paradox has been put sharply by Lewis Mayers:
To strike the balance between the needs of law enforcement on the
one hand and the protection of the citizen from oppression and
injustice at the hands of the law-enforcement machinery on the other
is a perennial problem of statecraft. The pendulum over the years has
swung to the right.' "
Again (in AIR para 2 1, at p. 1033) it was observed: (SCC p. 436, para
23)
"We have earlier spoken of the conflicting claims requiring
reconciliation. Speaking pragmatically, there exists a rivalry between
societal interest in effecting crime detection and constitutional rights
which accused individuals possess. Emphasis may shift, depending on
circumstances, in balancing these interests as has been happening in
18

America. Since Miranda there has been retreat from stress on

protection of the accused and gravitation towards society's interest in
convicting law-breakers. Currently, the trend in the American
jurisdiction according to legal journals, is that 'respect for
(constitutional) principles is eroded when they leap their proper bounds
to interfere with the legitimate interests of society in enforcement of its
laws...'. (Couch v. United State). Our constitutional perspective has,
therefore, to be relative and cannot afford to be absolutist, especially
when torture technology, crime escalation and other social variables
affect the application of principles in producing humane justice."
12. The National Police Commission in its Third Report referring to the
quality of arrests by the police in India mentioned power of arrest as
one of the chief sources of corruption in the police. The report
suggested that, by and large, nearly 60% of the arrests were either
unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action
accounted for 43.2% of the expenditure of the jails. The said
Commission in its Third Report at p. 31 observed thus:
"It is obvious that a major portion of the arrests were connected with
very minor prosecutions and cannot, therefore, be regarded as quite
necessary from the point of view of crime prevention. Continued
detention in jail of the persons so arrested has also meant avoidable
expenditure on their maintenance. In the above period it was
estimated that 43.2 per cent of the expenditure in the connected jails
was over such prisoners only who in the ultimate analysis need not
have been arrested at all."
As on today, arrest with or without warrant depending upon the
circumstances of a particular case is governed by the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
13. Whenever a public servant is arrested that matter should be
intimated to the superior officers, if possible, before the arrest and in
any case, immediately after the arrest. In cases of members of Armed
Forces, Army, Navy or Air Force, intimation should be sent to the
Officer commanding the unit to which the member belongs. It should
be done immediately after the arrest is effected.
14. Under Rule 229 of the Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok
Sabha, when a member is arrested on a criminal charge or is detained
under an executive order of the Magistrate, the executive authority
must inform without delay such fact to the Speaker. As soon as any
arrest, detention, conviction or release is effected intimation should
invariably be sent to the Government concerned concurrently with the
intimation sent to the Speaker/Chairman of the Legislative
Assembly/Council/Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha. This should be sent through
telegrams and also by post and the intimation should not be on the
ground of holiday.
15. With regard to the apprehension of juvenile offenders Section 58 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down as under:
"Officers in charge of police stations shall report to the District
Magistrate, or, if he so directs, to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the
cases of all persons arrested without warrant, within the limits of their
respective stations, whether such persons have been admitted to bail
or otherwise."
16. Section 19(a) of the Children Act makes the following provision:
"The parent or guardian of the child, if he can be found, of such arrest
and direct him to be present at the Children's Court before which the
child will appear;"
17. In England, the police powers of arrest, detention and interrogation
19

have been streamlined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act,' 1984
based on the report of Sir Cyril Philips Committee (Report of a Royal
Commission on Criminal Procedure, Command-papers 8092 1981 1).
18. It is worth quoting the following passage from Police Powers and
Accountability by John L. Lambert, p. 93:
"More recently, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure
recognized that 'there is a critically important relationship between the
police and the public in the detection and investigation of crime' and
suggested that public confidence in police powers required that these
conform to three principal standards: fairness, openness and
workability." (emphasis supplied)
19. The Royal Commission suggested restrictions on the power of
arrest on the basis of the "necessity of (sic) principle". The two main
objectives of this principle are that police can exercise powers only in
those cases in which it was genuinely necessary to enable them to
execute their duty to prevent the commission of offences, to
investigate crime. The Royal Commission was of the view that such
restrictions would diminish the use of arrest and produce more uniform
use of powers. The Royal Commission Report on Criminal Procedure Sir
Cyril Philips at p. 45 said:
"... we recommend that detention upon arrest for an offence should
continue only on one or more of the following criteria:
(a) the person's unwillingness to identify himself so that a summons
may be served upon him;
(b) the need to prevent the continuation or repetition of that offence;
(c) the need to protect the arrested person himself or other persons or
property;
(d) the need to secure or preserve evidence of or relating to that
offence or to obtain such evidence from the suspect by questioning
him; and
(e) the likelihood of the person failing to appear at court to answer any
charge made against him."
The Royal Commission in the above said report at p. 46 also
suggested:
"To help to reduce the use of arrest we would also propose the
introduction here of a scheme that is used in Ontario enabling a police
officer to issue what is called an appearance notice. That procedure
can be used to obtain attendance at the police station without
resorting to arrest provided a power to arrest exists, for example to be
fingerprinted or to participate in an identification parade. It could also
be extended to attendance for interview at a time convenient both to
the suspect and to the police officer investigating the case......
20. In India, Third Report of the National Police Commission at p. 32
also suggested:
"An arrest during the investigation of a cognizable case may be
considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances:
(i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery,
rape etc., and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his
movements under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror
stricken victims.
(ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law.
(iii) The accused is given to violent behavior and is likely to commit
further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint.
(iv) The accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is
likely to commit similar offences again.
It would be desirable to insist through departmental instructions that a
20

police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary the
reasons for making the arrest, thereby clarifying his conformity to the
specified guidelines......"
The above guidelines are merely the incidents of personal liberty
guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do
so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification
for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to
justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in
police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the
reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a
routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence
made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the
interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and
perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a
reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the
genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief
both as to the persons complicity and even so as to the need to effect
arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The
recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the
constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty
and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of
complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification
in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is
necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be
avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station
House and not to leave the Station without permission would do.
21. Then, there is the right to have someone informed. That right of
the arrested person, upon request, to have someone informed and to
consult privately with a lawyer was recognized by Section 56(1) of the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 in England (Civil Actions
Against the Police Richard Clayton and Hugh Tomlinson; p. 313). That
section provides:
"Where a person has been arrested and is being held in custody in a
police station or other premises, he shall be entitled, if he so requests,
to have one friend or relative or other person who is known to him or
who is likely to take an interest in his welfare told, as soon as is
practicable except to the extent that delay is permitted by this section,
that he has been arrested and is being detained there."
These rights are inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution
and require to be recognized and scrupulously protected. For effective
enforcement of these fundamental rights, we issue the following
requirements:
1. An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so
requests to have one friend, relative or other person who is known to
him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told as far as is
practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.
2. The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is
brought to the police station of this right.
3. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was
informed of the arrest. These protections from power must be held to
flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly.
It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person
is produced, to satisfy himself that these requirements have been
complied with.
22. The above requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrest till
21

legal provisions are made in this behalf. These requirements shall be in

addition to the rights of the arrested persons found in the various
police manuals.
23. These requirements are not exhaustive. The Directors General of
Police of all the States in India shall issue necessary instructions
requiring due observance of these requirements. In addition,
departmental instruction shall also be issued that a police officer
making an arrest should also record in the case diary, the reasons for
making the arrest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Guidelines not to arrest 498a
ALLAHABAD

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

?Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3322 of 2010
Petitioner :- Re: In The Matter Of Matrimonial Disputes
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- P.N. Gangwar
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Abhay Raj Singh,Pankaj Naqvi
Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.
Hon'ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.
On 8.8.2011, there was an extensive hearing in this case when Ms.
Leena Jauhari, Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. Lucknow, Smt.
Poonam Sikand, Additional L.R and Tanuja Srivastava, I.G.( Public
Grievances), Ms. G. Sridevi, Secretary, U.P. State Legal Services
Authority, Sri Ashok Mehta, Organising Secretary, Allahabad High
Court, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sister
Sheeba Jose Advocates on behalf of the intervenor 'Sahyog,' Sri D.R.
Chaudhary, learned Government Advocate and Sri Bimlendu Tripathi,
learned A.G.A appeared and were heard at length.
An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Director General of
Police on 10.8.2011. Another affidavit was also filed on behalf of
Special Secretary (Home), U.P. on 12.8.2011. An application was also
moved by the intervenor 'Sahyog.'
This Court appreciates the positive contributions and suggestions of all
the aforesaid advocates and other State officials and that this pro bono
litigation is being taken up in the right non-adversarial spirit, with the
aim to ensure that wherever allegations are not very grave, in order to
save families, and children and indeed the institution of marriage, an
effort be first made for reconciling matrimonial disputes by mediation
before steps can be taken for prosecuting offenders, if they are called
for. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2010 SC 3363 the learned
members of the bar have been reminded of their noble profession and
their noble tradition and of their responsibility to ensure that the social
fibre of family life is preserved by desisting from over-implicating all inlaws and their relations as accused persons in 498-A IPC reports, and
from filing exaggerated reports. They are also to make an endeavour to
bring about amicable settlements to this essentially human problem. It
has also been rightly pointed out in Sushil Kumar Sharma v Union of
India, AIR 2005 SC 3100 (para 18) whilst upholding the vires of section
22

498-A IPC, that it should be ensured that complaints are not filed with
oblique motives by unscrupulous litigants so that a "new legal
terrorism" is not unleashed, and that the well-intentioned provision is
not misused.
In Kans Raj v State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324, it has been held that
there is a tendency in cases of 498-A IPC and 304 B IPC to rope in a
large number of in-laws of the victim wife, and not only the husband. In
para 5 of the law report it has been observed: "....In their over
enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the
parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for
involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the
prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have
happened in the instant case."
Specifically as a result of the interaction and suggestions which
emerged after a dialogue with the Advocates and officials, this Court
requires to formulate its opinion on the following points:
1.Whether registration of an FIR is mandatory once an aggrieved
woman or the eligible family members as specified under section 198A
Cr.P.C approaches the police station giving information that an offence
under section 498A IPC or allied provisions such as under
section D.P. Act or under section 406 I.P.C have been committed by
the husband or other in-laws and their relations.
2.Should the concerned police officers immediately proceed to arrest
the husband and other family members of the husband whenever such
an FIR is lodged.
3.Can a distinction be made between the cases where arrest is
immediately necessary and other cases where arrest can be deferred
and an attempt be first made for bringing about mediation between
the parties.
4.What is the appropriate place where mediation should be conducted.
5.Should a time frame be laid down for concluding the mediation
proceedings.
6.Who should be the members of the mediation cell in the district.
7.What is the procedure to be followed by the police when a report of a
cognizable offence under section 498A IPC or allied provisions is
disclosed.
8.Is training of mediators desirable and who should conduct the
training?
9.Should the offence under Section 498A be made compoundable and
what steps the State Government may take in this direction.
Discussions on the points requiring formulation by the Court.
1. Whether registration of an FIR is mandatory?
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that when
any information regarding information of a cognizable offence is given
orally to the officer in charge of the Police Station, he is required to
reduce it in writing and to enter it into the general diary. The said
provision gives no option to the concerned Police Officer to refuse to
lodge the F.I.R. once information of a cognizable offence is given to the
police officer.
In paragraph No. 30 and 31 in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Cri. L.J. 527, it has been laid down that section 154 (1) of the
Code provides that whenever an information is given that a cognizable
offence has been committed, the Police Officer cannot embark upon an
inquiry to ascertain as to whether the information was reliable or
genuine or refuse to register the case on that ground. The officer in
23

charge of the Police Station is statutorily obliged to register the case

and then to proceed with the investigation, if he even has reason to
suspect the commission of an offence.
(2) Whether arrest of husband and family members mandatory once
FIR is lodged
It is noteworthy that section 154 Cr.P.C. which deals with the powers of
investigation and the necessity of lodging an FIR when a cognizable
offence only speaks of "information relating to the commission of a
cognizable offence" given to an officer. No pre-condition, as pointed out
above, is placed under this provision for first examining whether the
information is credible or genuine. In contrast section 41(1)((b) Cr.P.C
dealing with the powers of the police to arrest without a warrant from a
Magistrate requires the existence of a "reasonable complaint," or
"credible information" or "reasonable suspicion" of the accused being
involved in a cognizable offence as pre-conditions for effecting his
arrest.
The two provisos to section 157 also speak of two exceptions when
investigation (and consequent arrest) may not be necessary. These two
situations are:
(a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given
against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature,
the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or
depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is
no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not
investigate the case. However in such situations the police officer is to
mention in his report the reasons for not investigating the case. In the
second case, where a police officer is of the opinion that there is no
sufficient ground for investigating a matter, he is to also inform the
informant of his decision.
The proviso (b) to section 157 (1) Cr. P. C. has been discussed in
paragraphs No. 53 and 54 in Bhajan Lal (supra). The law report clarifies
that clause (b) of the proviso permits a police officer to satisfy himself
about the sufficiency of the grounds even before entering on an
investigation. However, at that stage, the satisfaction that on the
allegations, a cognizable offence warranting investigation is disclosed,
has only to be based on the F.I.R. and other materials appended to it,
which are placed before the Police Officer. Therefore, if it appears to
the Police Officer that the matrimonial dispute between the spouses is
either not of a grave nature or is the result of a conflict of egos or
contains an exaggerated version, or where the complainant wife has
not received any injury or has not been medically examined, he may
even desist or defer the investigation in such a case.
Recently by Act No. 5 of 2009, the newly introduced section 41 (1) (b),
has been given effect to from 1.11.2010. This sub-section provides that
if some material or credible information exists of an accused being
involved in a cognizable offence punishable with 7 years imprisonment
or less with or without fine, the Police Officer has only to make an
arrest, if he is satisfied that such arrest is necessary (i) to prevent such
person from committing any further offence, (ii) for proper
investigation of the offence; (iii) to prevent such person from causing
the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with the
evidence in any manner; (iv) for preventing such person from making
any inducement, threat or promise to a witness to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer (v) or unless
such a person is arrested, he may not appear in the Court when
24

required. This new provision has forestalled any routine arrests simply
because a person is said to be involved in a cognizable offence
punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years. The arrest is only to be
effected if any or all of the five conditions abovementioned are fulfilled.
For making or for not making such arrest, the Police Officer has to
record his reasons. In contrast to this provision, under section 41 (1)
(ba) such a limitation has not been provided for those cases, where
credible information has been received that a person has committed
an offence punishable with imprisonment of over 7 years.
A new provision, section 41 A Cr.P.C has also been added by Act No. 5
of 2009 (with effect from 1.11.2010) which gives powers to a Police
Officer to issue a notice directing the person against whom a
reasonable complainant has been made or credible information or
reasonable suspicion exists to appear before him or at any place that
he may specify in the notice where the police officer is of the opinion
that the arrest is not required under the provisions of section 41(1)
Cr.P.C. but the accused is to comply with the notice and he would not
be arrested, if he continues to comply with the terms of the notice.
However, where the person fails to comply with the notice, the police
has all powers to arrest him, unless there is some order of the Court
granting him bail or staying his arrest.
Now an offence under section 498A IPC is punishable with
imprisonment only up to three years and fine. If there are no injuries
on a victim, in our opinion, it constitutes a fit case for the police officer
to exercise powers conferred by the newly introduced section 41(1)(b)
read with section 41 (A), where instead of straight away arresting the
accused, it would be a better option at the initial stage for the police
officer to require the said person to appear before him or before the
Mediation Centre. As pointed out above section 41 A Cr.P.C. permits
calling the person concerned before the police officer himself or to any
specified place. Hence a notice can be given to the accused to appear
before the mediation centre. This restraint on arrest, and placing of
conditions or terms for arrest would also apply a fortiori to the accused
family members of the husband of the aggrieved wife.
It may be pointed out that if the FIR is immediately registered that will
placate the concerns of the aggrieved wife to some extent that action
is being taken on her complaint, and it has not been put on the back
burner.
(3) Whether distinction possible between cases necessitating
immediate arrest, and cases where attempt for mediation should first
be made
Arrest may be necessitated, if the husband or other in-laws have given
a grave beating to the wife endangering her life or where the wife has
been subjected to repeated violence or there are any other
circumstances of exceptional cruelty against the wife, where future
recurrence of violence or cruelty seems likely, or for preventing the
husband and his accused family members from trying to browbeat
witnesses or to tamper with the course of justice, or for ensuring the
presence of the husband or his accused family members at the trial, or
for effective investigation. In all other cases, we are of the opinion that
an attempt should be first made for bringing about reconciliation
between the parties by directing the complainant wife and her natal
family members and the husband and other family members to appear
before the Mediation Centre when the wife or other eligible relations
under section 198-A Cr.P.C. approaches the police station for lodging
25

the report.
The advantage of not immediately arresting the accused husband and
his family members in a trivial case where there appear to be no
injuries on the aggrieved wife, is that in sudden matrimonial disputes,
because of clash of egos between the wife and her natal family
members and the husband and in-laws, the wife's side at the initial
stage usually insists on effecting the arrests of the husband and other
in-laws. Once the husband or his family members are arrested, and
subsequently bailed out, little motivation remains for the parties to try
and resolve their disputes by mediation. This may prove
disadvantageous for the wife in the long run who may not have a
source of independent livelihood for running her life in the future.
4.Appropriate place where mediation should be conducted.
The officials as well as the learned Government Advocate and other
lawyers present unanimously recommended that the Mediation Cell
should not be at the police station. The I.G. (Public Grievances) pointed
out that the police officer before whom the report is lodged lack proper
training for conducting mediations sessions. Also if the police officer
refrains from arresting the accused persons pursuant to the wife's FIR,
by attempting to mediate in the dispute between the parties, even if it
is a case of no injury, and even where he is only acting in accordance
with the general directions of the Court, questions about his integrity
are unnecessarily raised.
Moreover it is pointed out by the Secretary of the Legal Services
Authority that now Mediation or Conciliation Centres have been
established in all the District Courts. We, therefore, think that the
mediation proceedings should be carried out in the said Mediation
Centre.
5.Need for time frame for concluding the mediation proceedings.
The I.G. (Public Grievances) and others present rightly pointed out that
a time frame must be laid down for concluding the mediation
proceedings as when an aggrieved wife approaches the police for
relief, because she has been subjected to cruelty. If the matter is
unduly prolonged in the mediation process, the delay could act as a
shield to protect the accused from facing the penalty of law, causing
frustration and bitterness for the aggrieved wife. Notice should as far
as possible be served personally on the accused and the parties should
be directed to appear before the Mediation Centre within a week or 10
days of the lodging of the report by the aggrieved wife or family
members. Thereafter we think, that as far as possible, the mediation
proceedings should be concluded within two months of the first
appearance of both the parties before the Mediation Centre.
6.Who should be the members of the mediation cell in the district?
The Mediation Cell in the district should be headed by the Secretary of
the Legal Services Authority in the district, (at present, the Civil Judge,
Senior Division has been made the Secretary), other panel or retainer
lawyers appointed by the District Legal Services Authority, other
lawyers, who volunteer for giving free services before the Mediation
centre, especially female lawyers should also be made members of the
Mediation Cell. It is also desirable to have three or four social workers
(especially female) in the Cell. A female police officer of the rank of Dy.
S.P. may also be appointed an ex-officio member of the Mediation Cell.
7.Procedure to be followed by the police when a report of a cognizable
offence under section 498A IPC or allied provisions is reported
The report regarding commission of cognizable offence under section
498A IPC or other allied sections may be lodged at the concerned
26

police station where the incident takes place or at the 'Mahila Thana'
especially created in the district for investigation of such cases. The
police officer concerned will get the aggrieved woman medically
examined for injuries if the same are present. If the report has been
lodged at some police station other than the Mahila Thana, the injury
report and relevant police papers shall be forwarded to the Mahila
Thana for investigation of the case, and in appropriate cases the
investigating police officer at the Mahila Thana may refer the matter to
the mediation centre in the Civil Court, and direct the complainant to
be present at the mediation centre on a fixed date 7 to 10 days
thereafter. The accused should as far as possible also be personally
given notice to appear before the mediation centre on the date fixed.
We would also like the presence of trained social workers (especially
female) or legal aid panel lawyers to be present at the Mahila Thana
for counselling the aggrieved woman and her family members for first
trying to solve their dispute by mediation, when the case is registered
at the mahila thana. The notice to the husband and other family
members should mention that in cases the husband or the family
members of the aggrieved wife fail to appear on the date fixed or on
future dates, as directed by the Mediation Centre or fail to comply with
any condition that may be imposed by the police officer or Mediation
Centre, steps shall be taken for arresting the accused. The accused
husband or other in-laws should be directed to report before the police
officer on a date two months after the date of first appearance before
the Mediation Centre and inform the Police Officer about the progress
in the mediation. The in-charge of the mediation proceeding may also
direct the husband or other family members to appear before the
Police Officer at an earlier date fixed in case mediation has failed or it
has been successfully concluded and the parties concerned shall
appear before the Police Officer on the said date. It would also be open
to the complainant wife to inform the police officer about the progress
(or lack of it) of the mediation process. The notice should also clarify
that in case mediation is pronounced as unsuccessful at an earlier
date, and information is given by either party or the Mediation centre
to the Police Officer, he may require the presence of the accused
husband or his relations at an earlier date. If mediation has been
successfully concluded, it will be open to the Police Officer to submit a
final report in the matter. In cases, where it has not been successfully
concluded and the Police Officer is of the view that arrest may not be
necessary in a particular case, he may direct the accused persons to
obtain bail from theCompetent Court. In case, he is of the opinion that
the arrest is necessitated at a subsequent stage, it will be open to the
Police Officer to take such accused persons in custody. He should of
course record his reason for making the said arrest as provided under
section 41 (1) (b) (ii).
8.Necessity of training to mediators.
We endorse the opinion of the intervening lawyers, the learned
Government Advocate, Sri Ashok Mehta, Organizing Secretary of the
Mediation Centre of the Allahabad High Court and the Government
officials present, including the Secretary of the Legal Services
Authority, that training for mediators is a sine qua non for effective
mediation. The Organizing Secretary of the Allahabad High Court
Mediation Centre (AHMC) and Secretary of the U.P. Legal Services
Authority (UPLSA) stated that the centre and authority are prepared to
impart training to the mediators. We welcome this offer and direct that
there should be co-ordianation between the AHMC and UPLSA for
27

giving effect to this offer. By and by as the State Government is able to

create a cadre of trainers for mediation, their services may also be
utilised for training mediators in the districts.
We think training is necessary because the responses to our queries
from the subordinate district courts reveal the poor success rate in the
cases referred by the High Court or where the concerned subordinate
court has itself initiated the process of mediation. By contrast the
success rate at the Mediation Centre in the Allahabad High Court,
which has independent trained mediators (usually lawyers) is much
higher. The first requirement for successful mediation is the patience
on the part of the mediator, and his willingness to give sufficient time
to the contesting parties and especially to the wife to express her
bottled up grievances. Thereafter, in a disinterested manner, the
mediator should encourage the parties to come up with solutions,
giving useful suggestions for bringing about reconciliation, as the
mediator cannot impose his solution on the parties.
The guidelines hereinabove have been spelt out by the Court because
of the specific request of the officials and lawyers present to spell out
the terms of the same, as guidance for the State government (esp. the
home department), the Legal Services Authority and the police for
issuing appropriate circulars or government orders.
(9) Should offences under section 498-A IPC be made compoundable?
We have received considerable feedback from subordinate judicial
authorities that unless the offence under section 498-A IPC is made
compoundable, much benefit cannot be derived by trying to bring
about mediation between the parties. A dilemma then arises before the
concerned Court, (which cannot close the trial because the spouses
have compromised their dispute) or even before the aggrieved wife, if
she decides to settle her dispute with her spouse and in-laws either by
agreeing to stay with them or to part amicably, usually after receiving
some compensation. Even if she is no more interested in repeatedly
visiting the court for prosecuting the accused, in the absence of
provisions for compounding the offence, she has willy nilly to perjure
by making a false statement that her initial report was untrue or
lodged under influence of X or Y. If on the basis of this statement the
trial Court acquits the husband and his family members, and the
aggrieved wife returns to her matrimonial home, in the cases where
she is again maltreated, if she lodges a fresh report, its reliability will
be open to question.
The Apex Court in Ramgopal v. State of M.P., 2010 SCALE 711 observed
that an offence under section 498-A IPC is essentially private in nature,
and it should be made compoundable if the parties are willing to
amicably settle their dispute. Directions were given to the Law
Commission of India to consider the matter and to make appropriate
recommendations to the Government to bring about suitable
amendments in the statute.
In Rajeev Verma v. State of U.P., 2004 Cri.L.J. 2956, which was a
decision given by a bench in which one of us (Amar Saran J) was a
member, a similar suggestion was made to the Law Commission of U.P.
to recommend to the State government to make the offence under
section 498-A IPC compoundable with the permission of the Court
under section 320 Cr.P.C. The reasons for the suggestion were that
such FIRs are often lodged in the heat of the moment, without
reflection after a sudden quarrel, and sometimes as a result of wrong
advice or influences. But the complaining wife, who usually has no
source of independent livelihood (as a key problem in our society is the
28

lack of economic and social empowerment of women) and is unable to

provide for herself in the future, may have to suffer later if the
relationship with her husband is irrevocably ruptured due to the hasty
filing of the criminal case, particularly in view of the fact that the
offence is non-compoundable. To meet this situation B.S. Joshi v State
of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386, Manoj Sharma v State, 2008 SC(Suppl)
1171, and Madan Mohan Abbot v State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969
recommended quashing of the complaint in proceedings under section
482 Cr.P.C or in the writ jurisdiction where the aggrieved wife
compounded the offence. In the latter case it was observed that where
the dispute is purely personal in nature, (i.e. the element of the offence
being a crime against society is secondary), and the wife decides to
compound the offence, as there would be little likelihood of conviction,
quashing of the offence should not be refused on the hyper-technical
view that the offence was non-compoundable "as keeping the matter
alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a
luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot
afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more
effective and meaningful litigation"
The following passage in paragraph 12 in G.V. Rao v L.H.V. Prasad, AIR
2000 SC 2474 has been cited with approval in B.S. Joshi:
"There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times.
The marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to
enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But
little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume
serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who
could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There
are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over
their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes
years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their
"young" days in chasing their "cases" in different Courts."
In Rajeev Verma however relying on B.S. Joshi it was mentioned that
whilst the trial could be quashed in an application under section 482
Cr.P.C or under Article 226, being a fruitless prosecution where there
was little likelihood of conviction as the parties had settled their
dispute, but the proper forum for deciding the matter whether the
compromise application was voluntary and bona fide or whether it was
coerced was the lower court which could decide whether it was a fit
case for granting permission to the wife to compound the offence
under section 320(2) Cr.P.C. This was only possible if the offence under
s. 498-A IPC was made compoundable with the permission of the
Court.
A good option for providing recompense to the maltreated woman is
"The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005" which
provides for a gamut of civil rights for the aggrieved woman who has
entered into a domestic relationship with a man, with or without
marriage. Such civil rights include "Protection orders" (section 18)
prohibiting the respondent from committing any act of violence,
visiting the place of work, operating the common bank locker, making
telephonic contact etc. "Residence orders" (section 19), which restrain
the respondent from dispossessing a woman from the shared
household, or from alienating or renouncing his rights to the property
29

or by directing him to remove himself, or by providing alternate

accommodation to the aggrieved woman at the existing level. By
providing "monetary reliefs" (sections 20 and 22) by paying for loss of
earnings or medical expenses, or loss due to destruction of property by
domestic violence, or for maintenance of the woman and her
dependent children, or by payment of compensation for causing
injuries (including mental torture). "Custody orders" (section 21) for
custody of the child to the woman (including visiting rights) for the
respondent. Criminal proceedings under this Act have been allowed
only as a last resort, under section 31 when the respondent commits a
breach of a protection order, or where at the stage of framing charges
for breach of the protection order he finds that an offence under
section 498-A IPC has also been committed by the respondent.
The Act also provides under section 14 for the Magistrate to send a
matter for "counselling" before a registered "service provider," who is
qualified to provide counselling in such matters to the contesting
parties or to provide shelter etc. to the aggrieved woman.
In the counter-affidavit dated 12.8.11 filed on behalf of the Home
Secretary, U.P., it has specifically been mentioned that the State
government has given its consent to the Union of India to make
offences under section 498-A IPC compoundable, and the letter of the
Home (Police) Section-9 to the Union Home Ministry dated 4.2.10 has
been annexed. Whereas we appreciate this positive attitude of the
State government in not objecting to section 498-A IPC being made a
compoundable offence. However we find that Andhra Pradesh, by Act
11 of 2003 (w.e.f 1.8.03) has added section 498 A (wrongly described
as 494 A) after section 494 in the table in section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and
has permitted the woman subjected to cruelty to compound the
offence with the permission of the Court, but added a proviso that a
minimum period of three months be allowed to elapse from the date of
application for compromise before a Court can accept the request,
provided any of the parties do not withdraw in the intervening period.
The U.P. government may consider bringing out a similar amendment,
as it has already expressed its opinion that the offence under section
498-A IPC be made compoundable.
Before parting we must clarify that the Court is of the firm view that
acts of cruelty or violence against women have neither ceased, nor
have they been reduced, and the special provision for meeting this
problem must be retained in the statute book. We quote with approval
the view expressed in paragraph 11 of the recent Law Commission of
India, Consultation Paper-cum-Questionaire regarding section 498-A of
Indian Penal Code:
"While the Commission is appreciative of the need to discourage
unjustified and frivolous complaints and the scourge of overimplication, it is not inclined to take a view that dilutes the efficacy of
s. 498-A to the extent of defeating its purpose especially having regard
to the fact that atrocities against women are on the increase. A
balanced and holistic view has to be taken on weighing the pros and
cons. There is no doubt a need to address the misuse situations and
arrive at a rational solution ? legislative or otherwise."
List this case on 8.11.2011 before the regular bench to be headed by
one of us (Hon'ble Amar Saran J)
The State government through the Chief Secretary, U.P., the Principal
Secretary, (Home), U.P., Secretary Law/ L.R. U.P., Director General
Police U.P., and Member-Secretary, U.P. Legal Services Authority may
issue appropriate guidelines or circulars for laying down a system for
30

proceeding in matters where reports are lodged of commission of

offences under section 498 A IPC where immediate arrests may not be
necessary, for laying down the appropriate criteria in this regard, and
for sending the matters for mediation before the mediation cells in the
Civil Courts, in accordance with the aforesaid directions of this Court.
The Principal Secretary, (Finance), U.P. may apprise the Court as to the
provision for finance for appointing social workers/panel lawyers at the
Mahila Thanas, for ensuring that appropriate training is given to the
social workers, legal aid lawyers, and concerned police officers for
facilitating the mediation process, for making available adequate
infrastructure/ manpower at the mediation cells in the Civil Courts, and
for meeting expenses on other contingencies. Let the aforesaid
authorities submit their compliance reports within 4 weeks. We would
also like reports from all the Secretaries of the District Legal Services
Authorities to submit their compliance reports (through the District
Judges) for getting the aforementioned minor matters relating to
offences under section 498 A IPC settled through mediation and the
difficulties they encounter or forsee in complying with the directions of
this Court by the next listing. The State government is also directed to
submit its report on the next listing on the suggestion of the Court to
take steps for making the offence under section 498-A IPC
compoundable with the permission of Court by amending section 320
Cr.P.C in U.P. as has been done in the case of Andhra Pradesh.
Registrar-General is directed to forward copies of this order within a
week to the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary, (Home), Law
Secretary/LR, U.P., Principal Secretary (Finance), U.P., D.G.P., U.P.,
Member-Secretary, U.P., Legal Services Authority, U.P., Secretaries/ Civil
Judges (Senior Division) through District Judges in all districts in U.P.,
Sri Ashok Mehta, Organizing Secretary, Allahabad High Court,
Mediation Centre, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, and Sister Sheeba Jose, Advocates
for the intervenors, Government Advocate, U.P. and other advocates
and officials present in the hearing on 8.8.11 for information and
compliance.
Order Date :- 30.9.2011
HSM

31