Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Wednesday held a J&K Police officer of committing disrespect of the Supreme Court of India by arresting a Jammu resident and not exercising his powers judiciously as laid out by the apex court.
Pronouncing his judgment in the Iqbal Singh V/s Pankaj Sharma {Station House Officer (SHO) Police Station, Gandhi Nagar Jammu}, Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul recorded “the respondent (SHO) is held guilty of noncompliance of the directions contained in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others, and, therefore, has committed the contempt of the court”.
The 2014 order is a landmark judgement about the powers of arrest enunciated by the top court of India. It lays down the guidelines for police to exercise its arrest powers more judiciously, particularly in cases where the punishment is less than seven years of imprisonment.
Iqbal Singh, a chowkidar, son of Kundan Singh of Jammu, was implicated in an allegedly false FIR No. 202/2021 dated 17.05.2021 for commission of offences under Section 447 (criminal trespass) /323 (voluntarily causing hurt) 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) 506 (criminal intimidation) 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) IPC.
The FIR was registered against him with police station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, at the behest of one Dr Shveta Mahajan.
The other accused in the FIR included Surinder Nath, Sunil Kumar, and Naveen Chander, who had sold their house to the doctor at Gandhi Nagar Jammu.
The lady doctor along with her husband had gone for possession of the house but the chowkidar Singh did not allow them to enter into the premises. She accordingly decided to initiate action against Singh and ensured his arrest.
Singh was later released on bail.
Represented by senior advocate P N Raina, with advocate J A Hamal he in a nutshell said that the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra) have not been followed by the concerned police officer in his case.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul while referring to the Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar noted that the apex court has explicitly said “ police officers (ought) not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC”.
The police officers shall forward the check-list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention. The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention, the court said.
Citing the Supreme Court guidelines the bench of Justice Koul recorded “no arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person….”
He said “the police department is no exception to that, is under legal, constitutional and statutory obligation and duty to comply with all the orders of the courts inasmuch as judicial orders are binding on the executive to uphold the rule of law”.
The bench said “in the present case the respondent police officer has not done so. Respondent has teeth to say that if the judgment of the Hon’ble court is to be followed in strict sense, then almost all the officers of the State would be held liable under clause 11.5 of the judgment”.
The bench noted “the above words of respondent do not need rocket science to understand as it shows and reflects that he is least bothered about the court orders. He should have been ashamed to say such words. If those words are taken as the official stand of the department in which he is working, then it reflects and suggests the approach of the department towards the courts and the orders of the courts”.
It added “the reply/objections of respondent show and reflect that the respondent has been made to believe that he is not required to comply with the court orders but to follow his whims and caprices”.
The bench lamented that instead of initiating proceedings against the respondent, the police department has permitted him to do whatever he would like to do.
It further said “the respondent is under legal, constitutional and statutory obligation and duty bound to implement the orders of the courts. If he was/is not inclined to respect the court’s orders, then he has to face the consequences, which include contempt of the court, initiation of disciplinary proceedings and payment of compensation to the petitioner”.
The respondent police officer was held guilty of noncompliance with the directions contained in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others, 2014 (8) SCC 273, and declared to have committed contempt of the court.
The court directed him to cause his appearance on the next date of hearing, on 14 if this month and explain as to why he should not be punished for contempt of the court.
Apart from this the J&K Police department which it was otherwise required to do, “shall initiate departmental action against respondent for violation of the Supreme Court directions”, directed the court.
The officer has also been made liable to pay compensation to Singh, the victim. The amount of compensation to be paid by respondent to petitioner shall be decided and directed on the next date of hearing.
