Case Briefs
Truth and Youth (TAY) 2021. All rights reserved.

Dr. Rini Johar & ANR. Vs State of M.P. & Ors.


Author:   Muskaan Bangani, 4th Year student at Mody University of Science and Technology.


Citation: AIR 2016 SC 2679

Date of decision: 3rd June, 2016

Bench:  Dipak Misra

original copy: N/A

 

Facts:

  • No. 1 is a doctor and she is now studying in the US (USA). Her NGO offers domestic violence services for South Asian women in the United States. Petitioner No. 2, a woman in her seventies, is a practising attorney in the Pune District Court for the previous 36 years. The petitioner, who is also a member of M/s. Progen, a U.S. business.
  • As the facts would demonstrate, the informant, respondent No.8, had sent an email to the company requesting Aura Imaging Equipment, which is known as Aura Cam 6000, which is Aura Imaging Equipment in India, to be purchased. And the concerned company, having learned of the informant’s intentions, sent an email to the respondent referring to the petitioner, who is petitioning. When this person (the respondent) sent another email requesting her to provide him the location where he might meet her and obtain details for making a payment, she did as instructed. He stated that he is interested in applying to be a distributor as well.
  • Following a trial of Aura Cam 6000 in Pune, the informant purchased a cheaper Aura Cam model for Rs.2,54,800/- (i.e. Twinaura Pro). A receipt handwritten on personal stationery was provided as proof of payment of Rs.2,50,000. The 8th respondent mentioned his wish to purchase a laptop from M/s during the course of the meeting. He (Petitioner no. 1) represented the progeny which the petitioner no. 2 has produced. For purposes of the debate, the laptop was delivered to the person who stated that he owed Rs.4,800/- and USD 350 in respect of the Aura Cam.
  • The pledge was made to pay the money back within a short period of time. This is stated by the respondent no. 8, who asserts that he/she has never raised any complaints about either the machine or the laptop. All transactions related to the 8th respondent’s false representation of himself as the sole distributor in India have been revealed and allegations have been made against him, claiming that he misrepresented himself to law enforcement officials in the state of M.P. With the proper authority from the company, you can do it. In relation to the claims we will hear in the present writ petition, the facts truly don’t bear any relevance.
  • When the case stood as stated above, respondent No. 8 filed a complaint with the Inspector General of Police, Cyber Cell, and Bhopal with regard to fraud in the amount of US $10,500, submitted by the petitioner No. 1 and Mr. Guy Coggin. Upon receiving the complaint, Cyber Police Headquarters, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh registered FIR no. 24/2012 under Section 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) against the petitioner. On November 20, 2012, Cyber Cell issued a new directive as follows:
  • Since cyber state police have lodged a FIR under section 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and section 66D of the IT Act, the following individuals are requested to report to Pune.

Issue:

  • A key issue that arose during the arrest of persons in relation to specific types of offences that fit the criteria of Section 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was the set of guidelines which must be followed during such arrests.

Held:

  1. Enabling rules mandated by the Supreme Court in DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 are so necessary for the police to proceed with the arrest. As stated in Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only once the officer has satisfied himself that a person has committed an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of less than seven years or for seven years with or without fine can he apprehend that person. it is important that an arrest is essential; a police officer must therefore verify that the arrest is absolutely necessary.
  • To preventing a repeat offence or conducting a proper investigation of the case
  • to prevent the accused from influencing the evidence of the crime in any way.
  • to restrict the individual from offering, offering, or promising incentives, threats, or favours to a witness so as to deter him from telling the court or the police officer about what he knows.
  1. As his presence in the court whenever needed cannot be avoided, he is on call 24/7.
  2. An accused who complies with the terms of notice and appears before the police officer cannot be arrested unless the officer believes such an arrest is required. While this is the case, it is the officer’s responsibility to note down the rationale for the same in the guidelines. Proposal No. 30 of 2015, dated 3-6-2016 (WP (Cri) No. 30 of 2015, dated 3-6-2016)

Critical analysis:

  • It should be ensured that law enforcement agencies do not abuse their power and infringe on the rights of citizens without justification, as by arresting the accused. Such arrests are particularly unjustifiable when the crime alleged does not entail a significant prison sentence. The Supreme Court in this judgement outlined crucial standards that should be followed when FIRs are uploaded on the official website of the state police. specialised cases, procedures to follow to get a duplicate of the same are provided as well.
  • No arrest should be made unless the complaint is legitimate and there is a reasonable belief in the accused’s complicity and the impending necessity to apprehend him. Liberty should not be denied to anyone, regardless of the situation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Total
0
Share