1) if your wife is residing in said location she can file complaint in said police station .

2) you have not mentioned what is nature of complaint what allegations are made in the complaint .

3) The SHO has statutory authority under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate any cognizable case for which an FIR is lodged.

(a) At the stage of investigation, there is no question of interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the investigating officer has no territorial jurisdiction.

(b) After investigation is over, if the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the FIR has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report accordingly under section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence.

(W.P (Crl.) No.1266 of2007),

justice Dhingra held that In the present case there is no allegation made in the FIR itself that a part of the crime was committed in Delhi. The parties never lived in Delhi. Marriage took place in U.P. Matrimonialhome was in Patiala and alleged crime of dowry demand was allegedly committed in Patiala (Punjab).

No investigation is needed to come to the conclusion that no part of crime was committed in Delhi

and the alleged crime was committed either in U.P. or Patiala. PS Malviya Nagar even if registered

the FIR should have transferred it to the Police Station of Patiala where the offence was committed.

Normally in all such cases, zero FIR is registered at a Police Station at Delhi and FIR is transferred to

the concerned police station where crime is committed. Though there is no illegality in registration of

FIR, but retaining of this FIR with PS Malviya Nagar raises doubt about bonafides of SHO.

7. It is to be noted that half of the criminal writ petitions filed in this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. are in respect of refusal of the Delhi Police to register

FIRs. People have to rush to the High Court seeking mandamus that police should be given

directions for registration of FIR. In most of these writ petitions cognizable offences are disclosed in

the complaints but police refuses to register FIR. Similarly, in most of the complaints filed before

Metropolitan Magistrate, the allegation is that police refuses to register FIRs. On the one hand,

police refuses to register FIRs of the people living in Delhi about commission of crime which had

taken place in Delhi and on the other hand the SHO of PS Malviya Nagar had registered an FIR in

Delhi regarding crime committed in Patiala. This attitude of the police is surprising. Such

registration of FIR only seems to be result of some pressure or as a result of consideration and needs

an enquiry to be conducted as to what was the reason for the SHO for obliging with the registration

of FIR at Delhi and not transferring the same to concerned area police station when no offence was

committed at Delhi. Police Commissioner also needs to issue guidelines to the SHOs in those cases,

where FIR is registered in respect of crime committed outside Delhi and where no part of the offence

has been committed within the jurisdiction of Delhi that such FIRs should be transferred to the State

concerned and also there should be no refusal of registration of FIR. In all those cases where there is a

refusal of registration of FIR, even where cognizable offence is reported, disciplinary action should be

taken against such police officers. The Courts are unnecessary being burdened with complaints or

writ petitions, where directions are sought for registration of FIRs.”

1) refuse to pay .dont bow down to black mail tactics . you can file for divorce on grounds of mental cruelty

2) on FIR being filed police will record the statement of your family members , carry out investigations and submit report to magistrate

3) you can obtain bail as per recent SC judgement

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1277 OF 2014

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9127 of 2013)

ARNESH KUMAR ….. APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. …. RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

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

Page 1

2

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is two

years and with fine.

Petitioner happens to be the husband of

respondent no.2 Sweta Kiran. The marriage between

them was solemnized on 1 July, 2007. His attempt

st

to secure anticipatory bail has failed and hence

he has knocked the door of this Court by way of

this Special Leave Petition.

Leave granted.

In sum and substance, allegation levelled by

the wife against the appellant is that demand of

Rupees eight lacs, a maruti car, an air-

conditioner, television set etc. was made by her

mother-in-law and father-in-law and when this fact

was brought to the appellant’s notice, he

supported his mother and threatened to marry

another woman. It has been alleged that she was

Page 2

3

driven out of the matrimonial home due to non-

fulfilment of the demand of dowry.

Denying these allegations, the appellant

preferred an application for anticipatory bail

which was earlier rejected by the learned Sessions

Judge and thereafter by the High Court.

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. The simplest way to harass is

to get the husband and his relatives arrested

under this provision. In a quite number of cases,

Page 3

4

bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the

husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades

are arrested. “Crime in India 2012 Statistics”

published by National Crime Records Bureau,

Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762

persons all over India during the year 2012 for

offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more

than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those

arrested under this provision in 2012 were women

i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters

of the husbands were liberally included in their

arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total

persons arrested under the crimes committed under

Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total

crimes committed under different sections of penal

code, more than any other crimes excepting theft

and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases

under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while

the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest

across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are

Page 4

5

pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly

3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.

Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom

and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so

also the police. There is a battle between the

law makers and the police and it seems that police

has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and

embodied in the Cr.PC. It has not come out of its

colonial image despite six decades of

independence, it is largely considered as a tool

of harassment, oppression and surely not

considered a friend of public. The need for

caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest

has been emphasized time and again by Courts but

has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest

greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the

failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only

this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative

sources of police corruption. The attitude to

arrest first and then proceed with the rest is

Page 5

6

despicable. It has become a handy tool to the

police officers who lack sensitivity or act with

oblique motive.

Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this

Court in a large number of judgments emphasized

the need to maintain a balance between individual

liberty and societal order while exercising the

power of arrest. Police officers make arrest as

they believe that they possess the power to do so.

As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation

and casts scars forever, we feel differently. 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. It would be

Page 6

7

prudent and wise for a police officer that no

arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction

reached after some investigation as to the

genuineness of the allegation. Despite this legal

position, the Legislature did not find any

improvement. Numbers of arrest have not

decreased. Ultimately, the Parliament had to

intervene and on the recommendation of the 177th

Report of the Law Commission submitted in the year

2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(for short ‘Cr.PC), in the present form came to be

enacted. It is interesting to note that such a

recommendation was made by the Law Commission in

its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as back in the

year 1994. The value of the proportionality

permeates the amendment relating to arrest. As

the offence with which we are concerned in the

present appeal, provides for a maximum punishment

of imprisonment which may extend to seven years

and fine, Section 41(1)(b), Cr.PC which is

relevant for the purpose reads as follows:

Page 7

8

“ 41. When police may arrest without

warrant .-(1) Any police officer may without

an order from a Magistrate and without a

warrant, arrest any person –

(a) x x x x x x

(b) against whom a reasonable complaint

has been made, or credible information

has been received, or a reasonable

suspicion exists that he has committed a

cognizable offence 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,

if the following conditions are

satisfied, namely :-

(i) x x x x x

(ii) the police officer is satisfied

that such arrest is necessary –

(a) to prevent such person from

committing any further offence; or

(b) for proper investigation of the

offence; or

(c) to prevent such person from causing

the evidence of the offence to

disappear or tampering with such

evidence in any manner; or

(d) to prevent such person from making

any inducement, threat or promise

to any person acquainted with the

facts of the case so as to dissuade

him from disclosing such facts to

the Court or to the police officer;

or

(e) as unless such person is arrested,

his presence in the Court whenever

required cannot be ensured,

Page 8

9

and the police officer shall record while

making such arrest, his reasons in writing:

Provided that a police officer shall, in

all cases where the arrest of a person is

not required under the provisions of this

sub-section, record the reasons in writing

for not making the arrest.

X x x x x x

From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision,

it is evident that a person accused of offence

punishable with imprisonment for a term which

may be less than seven years or which may extend

to seven years with or without fine, cannot be

arrested by the police officer only on its

satisfaction that such person had committed the

offence punishable as aforesaid. Police officer

before arrest, in such cases has to be further

satisfied that such arrest is necessary to

prevent such person from committing any further

offence; or for proper investigation of the

case; or to prevent the accused from causing the

Page 9

10

evidence of the offence to disappear; or

tampering with such evidence in any manner; or

to prevent such person from making any

inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as

to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to

the Court or the police officer; or unless such

accused person is arrested, his presence in the

court whenever required cannot be ensured.

These are the conclusions, which one may reach

based on facts. Law mandates the police officer

to state the facts and record the reasons in

writing which led him to come to a conclusion

covered by any of the provisions aforesaid,

while making such arrest. Law further requires

the police officers to record the reasons in

writing for not making the arrest. In pith and

core, the police office before arrest must put a

question to himself, why arrest? Is it really

required? What purpose it will serve? What

object it will achieve? It is only after these

questions are addressed and one or the other

Page 10

11

conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the

power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine,

before arrest first the police officers should

have reason to believe on the basis of

information and material that the accused has

committed the offence. Apart from this, the

police officer has to be satisfied further that

the arrest is necessary for one or the more

purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of

clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.PC.

An accused arrested without warrant by

the police has the constitutional right under

Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and

Section 57, Cr.PC to be produced before the

Magistrate without unnecessary delay and in no

circumstances beyond 24 hours excluding the time

necessary for the journey. During the course of

investigation of a case, an accused can be kept

in detention beyond a period of 24 hours only

when it is authorised by the Magistrate in

Page 11

12

exercise of power under Section 167 Cr.PC. The

power to authorise detention is a very solemn

function. It affects the liberty and freedom of

citizens and needs to be exercised with great

care and caution. Our experience tells us that

it is not exercised with the seriousness it

deserves. In many of the cases, detention is

authorised in a routine, casual and cavalier

manner. Before a Magistrate authorises

detention under Section 167, Cr.PC, he has to be

first satisfied that the arrest made is legal

and in accordance with law and all the

constitutional rights of the person arrested is

satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police

officer does not satisfy the requirements of

Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound

not to authorise his further detention and

release the accused. In other words, when an

accused is produced before the Magistrate, the

police officer effecting the arrest is required

to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons

Page 12

13

and its conclusions for arrest and the

Magistrate in turn is to be satisfied that

condition precedent for arrest under Section 41

Cr.PC has been satisfied and it is only

thereafter that he will authorise the detention

of an accused. The Magistrate before

authorising detention will record its own

satisfaction, may be in brief but the said

satisfaction must reflect from its order. It

shall never be based upon the ipse dixit of the

police officer, for example, in case the police

officer considers the arrest necessary to

prevent such person from committing any further

offence or for proper investigation of the case

or for preventing an accused from tampering with

evidence or making inducement etc., the police

officer shall furnish to the Magistrate the

facts, the reasons and materials on the basis of

which the police officer had reached its

conclusion. Those shall be perused by the

Magistrate while authorising the detention and

Page 13

14

only after recording its satisfaction in writing

that the Magistrate will authorise the detention

of the accused. In fine, when a suspect is

arrested and produced before a Magistrate for

authorising detention, the Magistrate has to

address the question whether specific reasons

have been recorded for arrest and if so, prima

facie those reasons are relevant and secondly a

reasonable conclusion could at all be reached by

the police officer that one or the other

conditions stated above are attracted. To this

limited extent the Magistrate will make judicial

scrutiny.

Another provision i.e. Section 41A Cr.PC

aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of

arrest looming large on accused requires to be

vitalised. Section 41A as inserted by Section

6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment)

Act, 2008(Act 5 of 2009), which is relevant in

the context reads as follows:

Page 14

15

“41A. Notice of appearance before

police officer.-(1) The police

officer shall, in all cases where

the arrest of a person is not

required under the provisions of

sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue

a notice directing the person

against whom a reasonable complaint

has been made, or credible

information has been received, or a

reasonable suspicion exists that he

has committed a cognizable offence,

to appear before him or at such

other place as may be specified in

the notice.

(2) Where such a notice is issued to

any person, it shall be the duty of

that person to comply with the terms

of the notice.

(3) Where such person complies and

continues to comply with the notice,

he shall not be arrested in respect

of the offence referred to in the

notice unless, for reasons to be

recorded, the police officer is of

the opinion that he ought to be

arrested.

(4) Where such person, at any time,

fails to comply with the terms of

the notice or is unwilling to

identify himself, the police officer

may, subject to such orders as may

have been passed by a competent

Court in this behalf, arrest him for

the offence mentioned in the

notice.”

Page 15

16

Aforesaid provision makes it clear that

in all cases where the arrest of a person is not

required under Section 41(1), Cr.PC, the police

officer is required to issue notice directing

the accused to appear before him at a specified

place and time. Law obliges such an accused to

appear before the police officer and it further

mandates that if such an accused complies with

the terms of notice he shall not be arrested,

unless for reasons to be recorded, the police

office is of the opinion that the arrest is

necessary. At this stage also, the condition

precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section

41 Cr.PC has to be complied and shall be subject

to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate as

aforesaid.

We are of the opinion that if the

provisions of Section 41, Cr.PC which authorises

the police officer to arrest an accused without

an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant

Page 16

17

are scrupulously enforced, the wrong committed

by the police officers intentionally or

unwittingly would be reversed and the number of

cases which come to the Court for grant of

anticipatory bail will substantially reduce. We

would like to emphasise that the practice of

mechanically reproducing in the case diary all

or most of the reasons contained in Section 41

Cr.PC for effecting arrest be discouraged and

discontinued.

Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure

that police officers do not arrest accused

unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise

detention casually and mechanically. In order

to ensure what we have observed above, we give

the following direction:

(1) All the State Governments to instruct its

police officers not to automatically arrest

when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC

is registered but to satisfy themselves

about the necessity for arrest under the

Page 17

18

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);

(3) The police officer shall forward the check

list duly filed and furnish the reasons and

materials which necessitated the arrest,

while forwarding/producing the accused

before the Magistrate for further

detention;

(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;

(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be

forwarded to the Magistrate within two

weeks from the date of the institution of

Page 18

19

the case with a copy to the Magistrate

which may be extended by the Superintendent

of police of the district for the reasons

to be recorded in writing;

(6) 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.

(8) Authorising detention without recording

reasons as aforesaid by the judicial

Page 19

20

Magistrate concerned shall be liable for

departmental action by the appropriate High

Court.

1. She is entitled to file the complaint at the place where she is residing right now. If the case is filed them immediately seek pre-arrest bail from the court lest you are arrested and put behind bars. The trend is to implicate as many members of the husband's family as possible to extract maximum amount of alimony. It is thus imperative that you obtain bail.

2. You cannot stop the police from registering the case. Once the case is filed it will be at liberty to arrest you and also have warrant of arrest issued against you. After the bail is obtained you can contest her case on merits.

3. Allegations are proved in a court of law and not before the place. At the time of registering the case the police is not expected to dig deep into the allegations. It is for the court to decide your guilt or lack of it.

Hi, Though She may lodge a police complaint against you for dowry harassment and also 498/A , the police will not arrest you immediately as per Hon'ble Supreme Court Guidelines police has to issue a Notice first so as and when you receive the notice you can apply for anticipatory bail so that police will not arrest you.

2. Secondly lodging a police Complaint where they have no jurisdiction to entertain the same is good ground for quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C before the Hon'ble High Court it is better you can file a petition for quashing the Complaint in the High Court.

1. I have heard the expression ''station bail'' for the first time. It does not have any recognition in the legal system.

2. If the case is filed go for pre-arrest bail which can be granted only by the court.

3. Any proof of your innocence which you have in your possession can be produced in the court.

1) you have no right to question why police is accepting the case . under section 156 Cr Pc police have right to investigate

2) police file FIR then investigate . you would be issued notice within period of 2 weeks from case being filed and your statement would be recorded regarding allegations made in FIR . you can deny all allegations made in FIR

3) once FIR is filed police can arrest you for reasons to be recorded in writing namely that your arrest is necessary for further investigation etc . you will have to be produced before magistrate within 24 hours of your arrest . you can move sessions court and obtain Anticipatory bail

4) your wife is hell bent on filing false cases against you . since there is no possibility of reconciliation file for divorce . your wife may come forward for a settlement

1. Do I have any right / any section to question why the police is accepting the case when we stay and the marriage took place in a different location? Please help me with the details as I want to counter the situation before the FIR is filed.

You dont have any right to ask police that why thy are registering the FIR or accepting the complaint. This will not cover jurisdictional objections too because she has given local address there, so police can go ahead with the complaint as per law.

2. if they insist the police to file the FIR, do the police do the investigation before filing FIR or do they file the FIR first and go for Investigation? Do I have any right to ask them to investigate first and then file the FIR? In case they file the FIR, can I get station bail as per new guidelines on 498A?

The police will not register FIR just on the basis of a complaint, they have to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the matter and ensure the contents of the complaint warrant registration of FIR, this is law, but if they conduct an eyewash inquiry and register a FIR on the return gratification for the consideration received, you may obtain Anticipatory Bail and attend the inquiry session before them.

3. If I file a divorce on mental cruelty, are there any consequences that I have to face?

The divorce case is totally different from the criminal onslaughts she has planned against you.

1. Is it still in complaint stage or FIR has been filed against you?

2. What has been mentioned in the complaint/FIR?

3. If it is against any violence caused by you then the said Police Station will not have any jurisdiction if the place of the alleged violence caused by you does not fall within the area of said police station,

4. However, it might so happen that she has complained that you had visited her friend's house at that place and assulted her. This is the standard operating procedure for filing FIR against husband's in distant areas to harass him,

5. First of all avail Anticipatory Bail by filing an application before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction on the said police station,

6. At the time of moving the AB application, avail certified copy of the FIR,

7. If it is found that the said Police Station has wrongly filed the FIR then file a Quash Petition before the High Court on the ground of jurisdiction.

1. She can not file FIR u/s498A of IPC at a police station covering/serving an area where you have never visited,

2. FIR u/s498A shall have to be filed before the police station which has jurisdiction on the area where the alleged violence has taken place,

3. Moreover, as per latest order passed by the Supreme Court, police will not make any arrest against 498A complaint without investigating in to the matter,

4. However, you are required to avail AB after the FIR is filed against you.

1. She can file DV or divorce case where she is presently staying,

2. For filing a criminal complaint/FIR under any section of IPC including FIR u/s498A of IPC, the complainant shall have to approach the concerned police station having jurisdiction on the area where the alleged crime/offence has taken place and not in any other police station,

3. It appears that she has not yet filed any FIR and is just threatening you about it,

4. Arrange to audio record all her such threats and lodge a police complaint about her said black mail which may insulate you from any false complaint filed by you in future,

5. Make sure to avail AB once you come to know about any FIR filed against you anywhere.