Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

(2014) 8 SCC 273

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Case: Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9127 of 2013)
Decided: 2 July 2014
Bench: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Pinaki Chandra Ghose (judgment by Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.)
Citation: (2014) 8 SCC 273
Provisions: Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 498A (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 85, with the Explanation now s. 86)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ss. 41 and 41A

Headnote

IPC s. 498A (BNS ss. 85-86) · Arrest in cases of cruelty by husband or relatives · CrPC s. 41 and s. 41A · Magistrate's scrutiny of detention

The case, in the Court's words

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The maximum sentence provided under Section 498-A IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine whereas the maximum sentence provided under [...] Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is two years and with fine. [official PDF pp. 1-2]

Held

There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. [official PDF p. 3]
We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. [official PDF p. 6]
All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the [...] parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC; (2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); [official PDF pp. 17-18]
The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; (4) The Magistrate while authorising 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 authorise detention; [official PDF p. 18]
Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing; (7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction. [official PDF p. 19]
We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine. [official PDF p. 20]

Result

In the result, we allow this appeal, making our aforesaid order dated 31st October, 2013 absolute; with the directions aforesaid. [official PDF p. 21]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

Editorial note: the directions were set out again in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. (2017) and the Court in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018, three-Judge Bench) described them as in consonance with CrPC ss. 41 and 41A and directed investigating officers to be guided by them. They were applied in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024) and again in Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka (2026) in the context of live-in relationships.

The headnote consists of extracts from the Court's judgment, selected by The Daily Bench for convenience. The selection is not part of the judgment, is not a law report and should not be cited. It may contain errors; rely on the official judgment. Library reference TDB-LL BNS-85-86/01 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.