The law of Arrest in India

Topics Covered:
1) Preface
2) Arrests
3) Supreme Court on Law of Arrests
4) Format of Complaint to Human Rights Commission over illegal (unjustified) Arrests by Police
5) Format for filing Complaint with Supreme Court for not observing directions given in Joginder Kumar Case while effecting Arrests:
6) FIR
7) Draft Format for making Complaint to Police to register FIR or a NC- as facts of the case suggests.
8) Bails
9) Police Torture & Brutality
10) Role of Police in curbing Public Nuisance
11) Police Willful disregard in discharge of his duties, a Criminal Contempt Of Court
12) Some Landmark High Court and Supreme Court Judgments
13) Role of Human Rights Commission
14) Role of Legal Services Authorities
15) Accident Victims and Role of Good Samaritan (Citizen)
16) Important Voluntary Organizations
17) Complaint to United Nations
18) Right to Information & Police
19) Among many other duties of police, important are:
20) Contacts of Media for Police Excesses:
21) FORMAT OF THE F.I.R. / NC
2
1) PREFACE:
Everyone cherish freedom, be it leftist or rightist, human being or animal being, Prime minister of India or a footpath dweller of Mumbai. The right of personal liberty of every individual is one of the most cherished fundamental right in our Constitution of India.
The post Independence era OF INDIA shows that most of the laws inherited from British Rule that had colonial exploitation as their basis, were left untouched. The present Police Laws indeed so inherited is largely left intact.
The modern legal system provides that as soon as an offence is committed the Criminal Law is set into motion, irrespective of the wishes of the injured party.
Although The Police force in India is known for all the wrong reasons- inefficiency, high handedness, brutality, corruption and being politicized, yet, it must also be stated that mere ruthless criticism will not improve Police efficiency for they function with a lot of constraints cannot be lose sight of.
We love to break traffic signals if there are NO “watchdogs”. We all so afraid of Police, ever thought why? Our watchdogs, our Justice System to check Police is simply absent.
3
One thing that terrorizes the most to a common man is fear of highhandedness of police who has presumably unbridled power to detain any person though maliciously.
The trauma and agony of an accused Undertrial prisoner and of his family members is beyond to be described and no amount of money compensation can bring back the valuable years of the innocent accused. The damage inflicted by unlawful detention is massive and ruthless. It bleeds the soul of the victim and may occasion the loss of livelihood of a family resulting in trap of ugly poverty.
Last and not the least. The accused is innocent till proven guilty. That ten guilty Man may escape but even one innocent should not be punished. This is the foundation on which the entire criminal Jurisprudence is built upon. That been so, how an innocent accused can be justified in captivity even for a day.
Citizenry Ignorance is the chief cause of Police causing excesses to them. Yet mere knowledge of laws and rights doesnt guarantee Justice, asKing for Justice, Uninterrupted, makes the difference. This small literature is aimed at informing Common man about various safeguards provided in law and so as to prevent police acting fanciful.
4
2) ARRESTS:
The National Police Commission in its Third Report and the Law Commission in Oct 2000 on Law of Arrest have both identified indiscriminate arrests by Police in India is the chief source of Corruption in the Police. The Report, among other things, said, “the Power of Arrest must be used in the rarest of rare cases and not in a routine manner. A mere allegation of Commission of offence cannot constitute ground for arrest. It would be desirable that a Police Officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary, the reason for making the arrest.”
In the historic judgment of Hon SC in D K Basu Vs State of West Bengal, among other things, directed-
1) That Policemen must wear visible and legible identification when arresting a person and when carrying out interrogation. Names and Particulars of police personnel handling interrogation must be recorded in the register.
2) It is the right of every person detained or questioned by Police to know the grounds for detention or questioning.
3) The Person arrested must be made aware of his right to have someone informed of his arrest Or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or detention.
4) A person arrested must be produced before a Judicial Magistrate/ Judge within 24 hours of his/her arrest.
5) A person arrested should be medically examined at the time of arrest and major & minor injuries on arrested person be recorded in Inspection Memo
5
duly signed by both Police Officer carrying out the arrest and the person arrested and the copy of this memo be provided to the person arrested.
6) Any person arrested must be medically examined by a doctor from an independent and approved panel of doctors, every 48 hours during detention.
7) Arrest or Search of women should only take place in presence of Women Police Officers and it should not take place in night. And women should be detained separately from men.
8) While an accused is in Police custody, his lawyer should be permitted to visit him.
9) Information of the arrest of accused person should be given to the district Control Room and the State Police Headquarters.
However, this menace is to a substantial extent will dry down in the light of very recent Amendment brought in CrPC 1973 law. President Of India has already given its assent to this Law and it is only need to be notified to be operational.
This newly enacted law will take away the powers of the police to arrest in cases of alleged offences which carry a maximum sentence up to seven years of imprisonment.
Bar associations across the country have been protesting under the pretext that these CrPC amendment (Section 41, CrPC), doing away with mandatory arrest provisions, would remove fear from the minds of criminals who would misuse the provisions under the garb of personal liberty.
6
“What the bar associations will never tell you is that the police never had the power to make such arrests and that arrest is an exception and not the norm”, Said our new Home Minister Shri P Chidamabaram in an media interview.
Once the law, CrPC (Amendment) Act 2008, becomes effective, the police, instead of arresting the accused, will be obliged to issue him/her a “notice of appearance” for any offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. The person can be arrested only if he/she does not appear before the police in response to the notice.
3) SUPREME COURT ON LAW OF ARRESTS:
I would be failing in my duties if I did not mention that the Landmark Judgment in the history of Indian Justice System is shared by one Dr Arun Agarwal of Noida.
In the words of Justice MN VENKATACHALLIAH in Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP – 1994
“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
7
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 person‟s 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.“
Third Report of the National Police Commission at page 32 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.
8
(ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law.
(iii) The accused is given to violent behaviour 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 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 SC thus vide para 29 of the order said These requirements are not exhaustive. The Directors General of Police of all the States in India shall issue necessary instructions requiring clue observance of these requirements. In additions, 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.
Link to complete Judgment.

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:b7CLWQL8m8cJ:www.pwtn.org/pictures/EU_pics/FINAL_STANDARDS/standards/National%2520documents%255CII%2520cases%255C35%2520Joginder%2520Kumar.doc+joginder+kumar+V+State+of+UP&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk

9
4) FORMAT OF COMPLAINT TO STATE / NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OVER ILLEGAL (UNJUSTIFIED) ARRESTS:
To, Date:
The Hon Chairperson
The State/ National Human Rights Commission Of India.
Address:
The Complainant:
The Respondents:
1) Names of the police Officers who effected Arrest /
Address
2) The State Govt of
Regarding: Illegal arrest effected by Police Officials in Wilful disregard to Order Pass by Hon Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar Case and Ignorance of Law is no excuse to escape illegal acts committed resulting/ sounding in damages/ Compensations.
Hon Chairperson,
10
The Complainant contends that the issue raised here is of paramount importance concerning the liberty of every individual.
The Complainants states that Human Rights are dignity and worth inherent in every Human Person. Whoever been interrupted in the beneficial enjoyment of his/her Life may approach this Commission for the enforcement of his/her rights so given by the Constitution of India and by other Laws. Even a stranger or a Friend or Relative may approach this Commission on behalf of the victim for the relief.
The Complainant states that this Commission, which is headed by Former Chief Justices, comes into existence for “Better” Protection of Human Rights and the Complainant consider this Commission as a better forum, for this is an informal forum where every common man can approach without the help of Lawyers. One page letter will do the needful and no fee is charged.
“Better” protection implies that this Commission is empowered to render Speedy and Effective Justice to the People, in Comparison to traditional Law Courts who by reason of their complex procedural compliance, costly Lawyers and time consuming litigation are unable to render/give speedy redressal to the grievances of the people.
This Commission is capable of giving all relief, concerning the Life and dignity of Life of People of India, the fundamental rights so guaranteed by
11
the Constitution of India, which can be obtained from the Constitutional Courts viz.the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
The Complainant regards this forum as instrumental in stimulating the movement for enforcing Human Rights against the „State‟ and also against Private persons.
With this Complaint Letter the Complainant invokes the Jurisdiction of this Hon Commission and Calls upon this Commission to decide if the Complainants are entitled to any compensation for Police Officials disregarding the directions so given by Hon Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar Case as stated hereinafter.
At the outset the Complainant crave leave to deal with the position in Law:
The Hon Supreme Court in Writ Petn. (Criminal) No. 9 of 1994, Decided On: 25.04.1994, Citation: AIR1994SC1349, Appellants: Joginder Kumar Vs. Respondent:State of U.P. and others, Hon’ble Judges: M.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., S. Mohan and Dr. A.S. Anand, JJ., Observed and directed, among other things,
Para 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, obligation 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
12
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. Lefore, 242 N.Y. 13, 24, 150 N.E. 585, 589 (1926), 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 offence. There are dangers ?? any choice. The rule of the Adams case People v. Adams 176 N.Y. 351, 68 N.E. 636 (1903) 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 came to pass.
Para 24. In India, Third Report of the National Police Commission at page 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 behaviour and is likely to commit further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint.
13
(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 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….
For effective enforcement of these fundamental rights, we issue the following requirements:
Para 29. These requirements are not exhaustive. The Directors General of Police of all the States in India shall issue necessary instructions requiring clue observance of these requirements. In additions, 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.
In the light of Article 141 of Constitution of India Law declared by Supreme Court is binding on all courts, binding on all public or private entities.
The Complainant now states the Reality: The biggest common fear of People in India is that the moment an FIR is filed with Police, they are liable to be arrested, unless Politics or money intervenes.
Apart from inducement to make arrest for malafide considerations, several Policemen appear to think that arrest is mandatory under the law while investigating a cognizable case.
14
In the instant case, the Police have simply refused to follow the law settled by Hon SC in Joginder Kumar Case as stated hereinbefore.
The Complainants was arrested on charges of ……….
The Complainant whilst borrowing the words of Hon Justice Venkatchaliah in para 25 of the instant case which states that: 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 of 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 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 person’s 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,
15
an arrest must be avoided if a police Officer issues notice to person to attend to Station House and not to leave Station without permission would do.
The Hon Supreme Court while quoting passage from Police Powers and Accountability by John L. Lambert followed by „necessity of Principle‟ as suggested by the Royal Commission, followed by Third Report of the National Police Commission which outlined the circumstances under which Police can effect arrest-
(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 behaviour 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.
The National Police Commission went on to suggest that it would be desirable to insist through departmental instructions that a 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 SC thus vide para 29 of the order said The Directors General of Police of all the States in India shall issue necessary instructions requiring clue observance of these requirements. In additions, departmental instruction
16
shall also be issued that a police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary, the reasons for making the arrest.
The Complainants says that neither he had been accused of having committed grave offences as outlined above, nor he had showed any violent behavior, nor he is anyway a habitual offenders and nor he was in anyway tried to abscond to evade the process of law. A brief Social background of Complainant should be brought to the notice of the Commission.
The Complainants don‟t know if Police had recorded any reasons as why they deemed expedient that the accused should be arrested, yet nothing has been placed on record by the Police or Public Prosecutor while in Bail Proceedings, nor the Hon Magistrate deemed expedient to sought details from the Police for most likely Hon Magistrate is likely to be unaware of this Case Law.
Given the understanding, it can safely be alleged that if Police of any State have ever acted according to the directions and law settled by Hon Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar Case stated hereinbefore.
The Complainant humbly submits before this Hon Court- My liberty is my life, in the absence of which I am left paralyzed, both in my rights and in my duties- right of life and duty to my family and duty towards my country.
The Relief prayed for:
17
1) This Hon Commission in the light of submission made hereinbefore, to decide if the Complainant is entitled to any compensation for his unlawful arrest. That the Commission may grant a symbolic compensation to the Complainant of Rs.100 and may also grant him the real Compensation of Rs. One Lakh. However whatever Compensation this Commission may grant, it is humbly requested that the same must be recovered from the guilty Police Officials.
2) In the light of guiding words of Hon Justice Hidaytullah wherein he said- You take my life when you take away the means whereby I live. It‟s a fact that mainly poor people comprise the Undertrial prisoners and captivity of bread earner of a family can safely translate life of dependent of Undertrial prisoners into ugly poverty. The Hon Commission may seriously consider directing every State Govt to takes the responsibility of family members of every undertrial prisoners.
3) It is seen that none of the State Govts are following the directions so given by Hon Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar case. The Hon Commission may in their discretion direct every State Govt to follow in letter & spirit, the directions so given in Joginder Kumar Case. Considering the importance of the issue, the Complainant also pleads before this Hon Commission in the exercise the powers vested in it u/s 18(b) of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, to approach every High Court for necessary directions.
The whole scheme of Justice is a Quest for truth and Lawyers & Counsels may be representing their Clients, yet in reality they assist the Court to reach truth and administer Justice. The Complainants seeks to release their
18
personal right of hearing before this Hon Commission and Hon Commission may pass Orders after giving due opportunity of being heard to the Respondents.
However the Commission is within its rights as not to grant all or any of the reliefs so sought. Yet, the Commission being a Quasi Judicial authority, humbly submitted, is obliged to pass reasoned Orders as to why it deemed expedient to not to grant reliefs sought. The reasoned orders will be helpful to the High Court whilst they will deal with appeal, if any, is filed in pursuant to the Orders of this Commission.
The Complainants finally prays this Hon Commission to accept their Complaint granting leave for any technical limitations in presentation with a view to securing ends of justice.
Thanking you,
XYZ.
19
5) FORMAT FOR FILING COMPLAINT WITH SUPREME COURT FOR NOT OBSERVING DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN JOGINDER KUMAR CASE WHILE EFFECTING ARRESTS:
The Complainant:
The Respondents:
1) Names of the police Officers who effected Arrest / Address
2) The State Govt of
To,
The Hon Chief Justice Of India
The Hon Supreme Court Of India
Tilak Road,
New Delhi.
Reg: Wilful disregard to Order Pass by this Hon Court and Ignorance of Law is no excuse to escape acts committed.
Hon Chief Justice of India,
With this Complaint Letter the Complainant invokes the Jurisdiction of this Hon Court and Calls upon this Hon Court to initiate Contempt of Court Proceedings against Police Officials for they disregarding the directions so given by this Hon Court in Joginder Kumar Case as stated hereinafter.
20
The Position in Law: As on today, arrest with or without warrant depending upon the circumstances of a particular case is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Hon Supreme Court in Writ Petn. (Criminal) No. 9 of 1994, Decided On: 25.04.1994 Appellants: Joginder Kumar Vs. Respondent:State of U.P. and others, Hon’ble Judges: M.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., S. Mohan and Dr. A.S. Anand, JJ., Observed and directed, among other things,
Para 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, obligation 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. Lefore, 242 N.Y. 13, 24, 150 N.E. 585, 589 (1926), 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 offence. There are dangers ?? any
21
choice. The rule of the Adams case People v. Adams 176 N.Y. 351, 68 N.E. 636 (1903) 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 came to pass.
Para 24. In India, Third Report of the National Police Commission at page 32 also suggested:
…An rest 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 behaviour 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 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….
Para 25. 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
22
is one thing. The justification of 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 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 person’s 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 to Station House and not to leave Station without permission would do.
For effective enforcement of these fundamental rights, we issue the following requirements:
Para 29. These requirements are not exhaustive. The Directors General of Police of all the States in India shall issue necessary instructions requiring clue observance of these requirements. In additions, departmental instruction
23
shall also be issued that a police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary, the reasons for making the arrest.
In the light of Article 141 of Constitution of India Law declared by Supreme Court is binding on all courts, binding on all public or private entities.
The Reality: The biggest common fear of People in India is that the moment an FIR is filed with Police, they are liable to be arrested, unless Politics or money intervenes.
Apart from inducement to make arrest for malafide considerations, several Policemen appear to think that arrest is mandatory under the law while investigating a cognizable case.
In the instant case, the Police have simply refused to follow the law settled by Hon SC in Joginder Kumar Case as stated hereinbefore.
The Complainants have been arrested on charges of ……….
The Hon Supreme Court while quoting passage from Police Powers and Accountability by John L. Lambert followed by „necessity of Principle‟ as suggested by the Royal Commission, followed by Third Report of the National Police Commission which outlined the circumstances under which Police can effect arrest-
(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 behaviour and is likely to commit further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint.
24
(iv) the accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is likely to commit similar offences again.
The National Police Commission went on to suggest that it would be desirable to insist through departmental instructions that a 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 SC thus vide para 29 of the order said The Directors General of Police of all the States in India shall issue necessary instructions requiring clue observance of these requirements. In additions, 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.
The Complainants says that neither they have accused of having committed grave offences as outlined above, nor they showed any violent behavior, nor are they anyway habitual offenders and nor were they in anyway tried to abscond to evade the process of law. A brief Social background of Complainant should be brought to the notice of the Court.
The Complainants don‟t know if Police has recorded any reasons as why they deemed expedient that the accused should be arrested, yet nothing has been placed on record by the Police or PP while in Bail Proceedings, nor the Hon Magistrate deemed expedient to sought details from the Police for most likely Hon Magistrate is likely to be unaware of this Case Law.
Given the understanding, it can safely be alleged that if Police of any State have ever acted according to the directions and law settled by Hon Supreme
25
Court in Joginder Kumar Case stated hereinbefore. Annexed herewith Copy of Supreme Court Judgment. EXHIBIT B
The Petitioners humbly submits before this Hon Court- My liberty is my life, in the absence of which I am left paralyzed, both in my rights and in my duties- right of life and duty to my family and duty towards my country.
The Relief: This Hon Court is thus requested to initiate Civil Contempt proceedings against ………….. for showing wilful disregard of Judgment of this Hon Court given in Joginder Kumar Case as stated hereinbefore. The Copy of Judgment is annexed herewith.
The whole scheme of Justice is a Quest for truth and Lawyers & Counsels may be representing their Clients, yet in reality they assist the Court to reach truth and administer Justice.
The Complainants has earned an impression that in our Law Courts the face of Counsels makes a crucial factor in litigations and these Counsels comes at a fortune which Complainant cannot afford and while appearing in person from all the way to Delhi to be allowed few seconds or minutes to present their cases compel the Complainants to release their personal right of hearing before this Hon Court and Hon Court may pass Orders after giving due opportunity of being heard to the Respondents.
The Complainants finally prays this Hon Court to accept their Complaint Granting leave for any technical limitations in presentation with a view to securing ends of justice.
26
Thanking you,
Signed
Complainants
ILLEGAL DETENTIONS: A person so arrested / detained illegally even for one hour can file a Complaint against the person for making false Complaint (FIR), including the Police Officer causing illegal arrest/detention.
FALSE COMPLAINTS: Where a false complaint been registered against any person, he may register an FIR against that person u/s 182 and 211 of IPC for making false complaint.
IPC Section 182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. IPC Section 211. False charge of offence made with intent to injure.
27
6) FIR:
Police not registering FIR is a lucrative traditional practice. However there are legal provisions in the event police refuses to register FIR, yet they may turn out to be costly and time consuming for a man who barely makes a living. What he can do in the said circumstances. Some of the things which comes to mind, apart from legal provisions, I state.
a) Registering complaint against Police officials with Anti Corruption Bureau of the State Govt. Follow up of the same with Right to Information application. Public Officials not doing their entrusted duties constitutes corruption.
b) Recording a letter to the Chief Justice of the respective High Court of the State, informing them briefly about the incident and stating that “I am a poor man, Pls help”. Police are not even registering complaints.
c) Approaching nearby civil society organizations / voluntary groups, Journalists or getting addresses of the same from friends and relatives.
d) Simply walk to any of the Court room and tell the presiding judge of the incident and tell the judge that police is not even registering FIR.
e) Might sound crazy, recording a symbolic complaint with Parliament of England at hcinfo@parliament.uk making copy of the mail to “Hon’ble Prime Miister of India Dr. Man Mohan Singh” at pmosb@pmo.nic.in, manmohan@sansad.nic.in, supremecourt@nic.in, The idea is that those occupying high political office may feel ashamed in the International