Guidelines and directions in cases registered u/s

498a/406 IPC, in order to salvage and save the

institution of marriage and matrimonial homes of the
couples
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Bail Application No. 1627/2008

04.08.2008
Judgment delivered on: 04.8.2008

Chander Bhan and Anr. ...... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Rajesh Khanna Adv.
versus
State ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma APP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)
By way of the present petition the petitioners who are parentsin-law of the complainant seek grant of anticipatory bail.
Mr. Sharma counsel for the State submits that allegations are
serious in nature against the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners do not
deserve grant of anticipatory bail.
Complainant is present in the court. She states that there is no
possibility of her going back to the matrimonial home. However, the
complainant is not averse to the matter being sent before the mediation cell.
Let the matter be sent to the Mediation Cell, Rohini Court, Delhi for exploring

the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties.

Let the parties appear before the Mediation Cell, Rohini Court,
Delhi on 11.8.2008 at 4.00 P.M.
List the matter before the court on 23.9.2008.
Till then the petitioners shall not be arrested.
Before parting with this case, I deem it expedient and in the
larger interest of saving matrimony of the couples and to restore peace between
the two hostile families of husband and wife who once must have celebrated the

marriage of couple with great zeal, fervor and enthusiasm but when faced with
many facets and stark realities of life entangled themselves to fight a long
drawn legal battle instead of building confidence, trust, understanding, mutual
respect for each other and their respective families.
The offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband (Section 498-A)
was added in 1986 to curb the vise of subjecting women to coerce them or their
relatives to meet unlawful demands for dowry.
Since its enactment, this provision has been subjected to systematic and
sustained attack. It has been called unfair and responsible for the
victimisation of husbands by their wives and her relatives. No doubt there may
be many deserving cases where women are being subjected to mental and physical
cruelty at the hands of the avaricious in-laws. But such cases have to be
distinguished from other cases where merely due to trivial fights and ego
clashes the matrimony is facing disaster.
What is not comprehended by young minds while invoking the provisions of
the likes of Section 498-A and 406 of IPC is that these provisions to a large
extent have done incalculable harm in breaking matrimony of the couples. Despite
the western culture influencing the young minds of our country, still it has
been seen that Indian families value their own age old traditions and culture,
where, mutual respect, character and morals are still kept at a very high
pedestal.
It has been noticed in diverse cases, where the brides and their family
members in litigation find the doors of conciliation shut from the side of groom
and his family members only on account of there having suffered the wrath of
Police harassment first at the stage when matter is pending before crime against
women cell and thereafter at the time of seeking grant of anticipatory or
regular bail and then the ordeal of long drawn trial.
Daily, matters come before this court seeking bail and for quashing of
FIR?s registered under Sections 498A/406 of the IPC. This court is of the view
that it is essential to lay down some broad guidelines and to give directions in
such matters in order to salvage and save the institution of marriage and
matrimonial homes of the couples.

Guidelines:
1. Social workers/NGO
There is no iota of doubt that most of the complaints are filed in the
heat of the moment over trifling fights and ego clashes. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that in their tussle and ongoing hostility the hapless children
are the worst victims. Before a wife moves to file a complaint with the Women
Cell, a lot of persuasion and conciliation is required.
(a) The Delhi Legal Service Authority, National Commission for Women, NGO?s and
social worker?s working for upliftment of women should set up a desk in crime
against women cell to provide them with conciliation services, so that before
the State machinery is set in motion, the matter is amicably settled at that
very stage. But, if ultimately even after efforts put by the social workers
reconciliation seems not possible then the matter should be undertaken by the
police officials of Crime against Women cell and there also, serious efforts
should be made to settle the matter amicably.
2. Police Authorities:
(a) Pursuant to directions given by the Apex Court, the Commissioner of Police,
Delhi vide Standing Order No. 330/2007 had already issued guidelines for arrest
in the dowry cases registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and the said
guidelines should be followed by the Delhi Police strictly and scrupulously.
(i)

No case under Section 498-A/406 IPC should be registered without the prior
approval of DCP/Addl. DCP.

(ii)

Arrest of main accused should be made only after thorough investigation has
been conducted and with the prior approval of the ACP/DCP.

(iii)

) Arrest of the collateral accused such as father-in-law, mother-in-law,

brother-in-law or sister-in-law etc should only be made after prior approval of
DCP on file.

(b) Police should also depute a well trained and a well behaved staff in all the
crime against women cells especially the lady officers, all well equipped with
the abilities of perseverance, persuasion, patience and forbearance.
(c) FIR in such cases should not be registered in a routine manner.

(d) The endeavor of the Police should be to scrutinize complaints very carefully
and then register FIR.
(e) The FIR should be registered only against those persons against whom there
are strong allegations of causing any kind of physical or mental cruelty as well
as breach of trust.
(f) All possible efforts should be made, before recommending registration of any
FIR, for reconciliation and in case it is found that there is no possibility of
settlement, then necessary steps in the first instance be taken to ensure return
of stridhan and dowry articles etc. by the accused party to the complainant.
3. Lawyers:
Lawyers also have a great responsibility in this regard.
(a) While drafting pleadings/complaints, the lawyers should not unnecessarily
suggest incorporation of wild allegations, or in character assassination of any
of the parties or their family members whatever the case may be.
(c) Lawyers are also to endeavour to bring about amicable settlement between the
parties as they are expected to discharge sacred duty as social engineers in
such cases instead of making them target for monetary considerations by
multiplying their cases.
4. Courts:
Subordinate courts, be it trying civil or criminal cases concerning bail,
maintenance, custody, divorce or other related matters shall in the first
instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the
nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about
reconciliation between the parties.
a) The first endeavor should be for possible reunion and restitution of the
parties and as a last endeavor to bring about peaceful separation.
b) If possible extra time should be devoted to such matters to restore peace in
the lives of rival parties be it by re-uniting them or even in case of their
parting ways.
c) Conciliatory proceedings by the court should preferably be held in camera to
avoid embarrassment.
d) Wherever, the courts are overburdened with the work, necessary assistance of
Mediation and Conciliation cells should be sought.

Apart from above directions it would not be out of place to ask parties
also to themselves adopt a conciliatory approach without intervention of any
outside agency and unless there are very compelling reasons, steps for launching
prosecution against any spouse or his/her in-laws be not initiated just in a
huff, anger, desperation or frustration.
DASTI. KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
August 04, 2008
?mg?

Bail Application No. 1627/2008

Page 11 of 11

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3322 of 2010
Petitioner :- Re: In The Matter Of Matrimonial Disputes
Respondent:- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- P.N. Gangwar
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Abhay Raj Singh,Pankaj Naqvi
Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.
Hon'ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.
On 8.8.2011, there was an extensive hearing in this case when Ms. Leena Jauhari, Secretary
(Home), Government of U.P. Lucknow, Smt. Poonam Sikand, Additional L.R and Tanuja
Srivastava, I.G.( Public Grievances), Ms. G. Sridevi, Secretary, U.P. State Legal Services Authority,
Sri Ashok Mehta, Organising Secretary, Allahabad High Court, Mediation and Conciliation
Centre, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sister Sheeba Jose Advocates on behalf of the intervenor 'Sahyog,' Sri
D.R. Chaudhary, learned Government Advocate and Sri Bimlendu Tripathi, learned A.G.A
appeare

and

were

heard

at

length.

An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Director General of Police on 10.8.2011.
Another affidavit was also filed on behalf of Special Secretary (Home), U.P. on 12.8.2011. An

application

was

also

moved

by

the

intervenor

'Sahyog.'

This Court appreciates the positive contributions and suggestions of all the aforesaid advocates
and other State officials and that this pro bono litigation is being taken up in the right nonadversarial spirit, with the aim to ensure that wherever allegations are not very grave, in order
to save families, and children and indeed the institution of marriage, an effort be first made for
reconciling matrimonial disputes by mediation before steps can be taken for prosecuting
offenders, if they are called for. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2010 SC 3363 the
learned members of the bar have been reminded of their noble profession and their noble
tradition and of their responsibility to ensure that the social fibre of family life is preserved by
desisting from over-implicating all in-laws and their relations as accused persons in 498-A IPC
reports, and from filing exaggerated reports. They are also to make an endeavour to bring
about amicable settlements to this essentially human problem. It has also been rightly pointed
out in Sushil Kumar Sharma v Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3100 (para 18) whilst upholding the
vires of section 498-A IPC, that it should be ensured that complaints are not filed with oblique
motives by unscrupulous litigants so that a "new legal terrorism" is not unleashed, and that the
well-intentioned provision is not misused.
In Kans Raj v State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324, it has been held that there is a tendency in
cases of 498-A IPC and 304 B IPC to rope in a large number of in-laws of the victim wife, and not
only the husband. In para 5 of the law report it has been observed: "....In their over enthusiasm
and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been
found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of
the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant
case."
Specifically as a result of the interaction and suggestions which emerged after a dialogue with
the Advocates and officials, this Court requires to formulate its opinion on the following points:
1. Whether registration of an FIR is mandatory once an aggrieved woman or the eligible family
members as specified under section 198A Cr.P.C approaches the police station giving
information that an offence under section 498A IPC or allied provisions such as under section
D.P. Act or under section 406 I.P.C have been committed by the husband or other in-laws
and their relations.

2. Should the concerned police officers immediately proceed to arrest the husband and other
family members of the husband whenever such an FIR is lodged.
3. Can a distinction be made between the cases where arrest is immediately necessary and
other cases where arrest can be deferred and an attempt be first made for bringing about
mediation between the parties.
4. What is the appropriate place where mediation should be conducted.
5. Should a time frame be laid down for concluding the mediation proceedings.
6. Who should be the members of the mediation cell in the district.
7. What is the procedure to be followed by the police when a report of a cognizable offence
under section 498A IPC or allied provisions is disclosed.
8. Is training of mediators desirable and who should conduct the training?
9. Should the offence under Section 498A be made compoundable and what steps the State
Government may take in this direction.

Discussions on the points requiring formulation by the Court:

1.

Whether registration of an FIR is mandatory?

<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that when any information regarding
information of a cognizable offence is given orally to the officer in charge of the Police Station,
he is required to reduce it in writing and to enter it into the general diary. The said provision
gives no option to the concerned Police Officer to refuse to lodge the F.I.R. once information of
a cognizable offence is given to the police officer.

In paragraph No. 30 and 31 in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Cri. L.J. 527, it
has been laid down that section 154 (1) of the Code provides that whenever an information is
given that a cognizable offence has been committed, the Police Officer cannot embark upon an
inquiry to ascertain as to whether the information was reliable or genuine or refuse to register
the case on that ground. The officer in charge of the Police Station is statutorily obliged to
register the case and then to proceed with the investigation, if he even has reason to suspect
the commission of an offence.
(2) Whether arrest of husband and family members mandatory once FIR is lodged .
It is noteworthy that section 154 Cr.P.C. which deals with the powers of investigation and the
necessity of lodging an FIR when a cognizable offence only speaks of "information relating to
the commission of a cognizable offence" given to an officer. No pre-condition, as pointed out
above, is placed under this provision for first examining whether the information is credible or
genuine. In contrast section 41(1)((b) Cr.P.C dealing with the powers of the police to arrest
without a warrant from a Magistrate requires the existence of a "reasonable complaint," or
"credible information" or "reasonable suspicion" of the accused being involved in a cognizable
offence as pre-conditions for effecting his arrest.
The two provisos to section 157 also speak of two exceptions when investigation (and
consequent arrest) may not be necessary. These two situations are:
(a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by
name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not
proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for
entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. However in such situations the
police officer is to mention in his report the reasons for not investigating the case. In the second
case, where a police officer is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for investigating a
matter, he is to also inform the informant of his decision.

The proviso (b) to section 157 (1) Cr. P. C. has been discussed in paragraphs No. 53 and 54 in
Bhajan Lal (supra). The law report clarifies that clause (b) of the proviso permits a police officer
to satisfy himself about the sufficiency of the grounds even before entering on an investigation.
However, at that stage, the satisfaction that on the allegations, a cognizable offence warranting
investigation is disclosed, has only to be based on the F.I.R. and other materials appended to it,
which are placed before the Police Officer. Therefore, if it appears to the Police Officer that the
matrimonial dispute between the spouses is either not of a grave nature or is the result of a
conflict of egos or contains an exaggerated version, or where the complainant wife has not
received any injury or has not been medically examined, he may even desist or defer the
investigation in such a case.
Recently by Act No. 5 of 2009, the newly introduced section 41 (1) (b), has been given effect to
from 1.11.2010. This sub-section provides that if some material or credible information exists of
an accused being involved in a cognizable offence punishable with 7 years imprisonment or less
with or without fine, the Police Officer has only to make an arrest, if he is satisfied that such
arrest is necessary (i) to prevent such person from committing any further offence, (ii) for
proper investigation of the offence; (iii) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of
the offence to disappear or tampering with the evidence in any manner; (iv) for preventing such
person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer (v) or unless such a person is arrested, he
may not appear in the Court when required. This new provision has forestalled any routine
arrests simply because a person is said to be involved in a cognizable offence punishable with
imprisonment up to 7 years. The arrest is only to be effected if any or all of the five conditions
abovementioned are fulfilled. For making or for not making such arrest, the Police Officer has
to record his reasons. In contrast to this provision, under section 41 (1) (ba) such a limitation
has not been provided for those cases, where credible information has been received that a
person has committed an offence punishable with imprisonment of over 7 years.
A new provision, section 41 A Cr.P.C has also been added by Act No. 5 of 2009 (with effect from
1.11.2010) which gives powers to a Police Officer to issue a notice directing the person against
whom a reasonable complainant has been made or credible information or reasonable
suspicion exists to appear before him or at any place that he may specify in the notice where

the police officer is of the opinion that the arrest is not required under the provisions of section
41(1) Cr.P.C. but the accused is to comply with the notice and he would not be arrested, if he
continues to comply with the terms of the notice. However, where the person fails to comply
with the notice, the police has all powers to arrest him, unless there is some order of the Court
granting him bail or staying his arrest.
Now an offence under section 498A IPC is punishable with imprisonment only up to three years
and fine. If there are no injuries on a victim, in our opinion, it constitutes a fit case for the police
officer to exercise powers conferred by the newly introduced section 41(1)(b) read with section
41 (A), where instead of straight away arresting the accused, it would be a better option at the
initial stage for the police officer to require the said person to appear before him or before the
Mediation Centre. As pointed out above section 41 A Cr.P.C. permits calling the person
concerned before the police officer himself or to any specified place. Hence a notice can be
given to the accused to appear before the mediation centre. This restraint on arrest, and
placing of conditions or terms for arrest would also apply a fortiori to the accused family
members of the husband of the aggrieved wife.
It may be pointed out that if the FIR is immediately registered that will placate the concerns of
the aggrieved wife to some extent that action is being taken on her complaint, and it has not
been put on the back burner.

(3) Whether distinction possible between cases necessitating immediate arrest, and cases
where attempt for mediation should first be made.
Arrest may be necessitated, if the husband or other in-laws have given a grave beating to the
wife endangering her life or where the wife has been subjected to repeated violence or there
are any other circumstances of exceptional cruelty against the wife, where future recurrence of
violence or cruelty seems likely, or for preventing the husband and his accused family members
from trying to browbeat witnesses or to tamper with the course of justice, or for ensuring the
presence of the husband or his accused family members at the trial, or for effective
investigation. In all other cases, we are of the opinion that an attempt should be first made for
bringing about reconciliation between the parties by directing the complainant wife and her

natal family members and the husband and other family members to appear before the
Mediation Centre when the wife or other eligible relations under section 198-A Cr.P.C.
approaches the police station for lodging the report.
The advantage of not immediately arresting the accused husband and his family members in a
trivial case where there appear to be no injuries on the aggrieved wife, is that in sudden
matrimonial disputes, because of clash of egos between the wife and her natal family members
and the husband and in-laws, the wife's side at the initial stage usually insists on effecting the
arrests of the husband and other in-laws. Once the husband or his family members are
arrested, and subsequently bailed out, little motivation remains for the parties to try and
resolve their disputes by mediation. This may prove disadvantageous for the wife in the long
run who may not have a source of independent livelihood for running her life in the future.
4. Appropriate place where mediation should be conducted.
The officials as well as the learned Government Advocate and other lawyers present
unanimously recommended that the Mediation Cell should not be at the police station. The I.G.
(Public Grievances) pointed out that the police officer before whom the report is lodged lack
proper training for conducting mediations sessions. Also if the police officer refrains from
arresting the accused persons pursuant to the wife's FIR, by attempting to mediate in the
dispute between the parties, even if it is a case of no injury, and even where he is only acting in
accordance with the general directions of the Court, questions about his integrity are
unnecessarily raised.
Moreover it is pointed out by the Secretary of the Legal Services Authority that now Mediation
or Conciliation Centres have been established in all the District Courts. We, therefore, think that
the mediation proceedings should be carried out in the said Mediation Centre.
5. Need for time frame for concluding the mediation proceedings.
The I.G. (Public Grievances) and others present rightly pointed out that a time frame must be
laid down for concluding the mediation proceedings as when an aggrieved wife approaches the
police for relief, because she has been subjected to cruelty. If the matter is unduly prolonged in

the mediation process, the delay could act as a shield to protect the accused from facing the
penalty of law, causing frustration and bitterness for the aggrieved wife. Notice should as far as
possible be served personally on the accused and the parties should be directed to appear
before the Mediation Centre within a week or 10 days of the lodging of the report by the
aggrieved wife or family members. Thereafter we think, that as far as possible, the mediation
proceedings should be concluded within two months of the first appearance of both the parties
before the Mediation Centre.
6. Who should be the members of the mediation cell in the district?
The Mediation Cell in the district should be headed by the Secretary of the Legal Services
Authority in the district, (at present, the Civil Judge, Senior Division has been made the
Secretary), other panel or retainer lawyers appointed by the District Legal Services Authority,
other lawyers, who volunteer for giving free services before the Mediation centre, especially
female lawyers should also be made members of the Mediation Cell. It is also desirable to have
three or four social workers (especially female) in the Cell. A female police officer of the rank of
Dy. S.P. may also be appointed an ex-officio member of the Mediation Cell.
7. Procedure to be followed by the police when a report of a cognizable offence under section
498A IPC or allied provisions is reported.
The report regarding commission of cognizable offence under section 498A IPC or other allied
sections may be lodged at the concerned police station where the incident takes place or at the
'Mahila Thana' especially created in the district for investigation of such cases. The police
officer concerned will get the aggrieved woman medically examined for injuries if the same are
present. If the report has been lodged at some police station other than the Mahila Thana, the
injury report and relevant police papers shall be forwarded to the Mahila Thana for
investigation of the case, and in appropriate cases the investigating police officer at the Mahila
Thana may refer the matter to the mediation centre in the Civil Court, and direct the
complainant to be present at the mediation centre on a fixed date 7 to 10 days thereafter. The
accused should as far as possible also be personally given notice to appear before the
mediation centre on the date fixed. We would also like the presence of trained social workers
(especially female) or legal aid panel lawyers to be present at the Mahila Thana for counselling

the aggrieved woman and her family members for first trying to solve their dispute by
mediation, when the case is registered at the mahila thana. The notice to the husband and
other family members should mention that in cases the husband or the family members of the
aggrieved wife fail to appear on the date fixed or on future dates, as directed by the Mediation
Centre or fail to comply with any condition that may be imposed by the police officer or
Mediation Centre, steps shall be taken for arresting the accused. The accused husband or other
in-laws should be directed to report before the police officer on a date two months after the
date of first appearance before the Mediation Centre and inform the Police Officer about the
progress in the mediation. The in-charge of the mediation proceeding may also direct the
husband or other family members to appear before the Police Officer at an earlier date fixed in
case mediation has failed or it has been successfully concluded and the parties concerned shall
appear before the Police Officer on the said date. It would also be open to the complainant wife
to inform the police officer about the progress (or lack of it) of the mediation process. The
notice should also clarify that in case mediation is pronounced as unsuccessful at an earlier
date, and information is given by either party or the Mediation centre to the Police Officer, he
may require the presence of the accused husband or his relations at an earlier date. If
mediation has been successfully concluded, it will be open to the Police Officer to submit a final
report in the matter. In cases, where it has not been successfully concluded and the Police
Officer is of the view that arrest may not be necessary in a particular case, he may direct the
accused persons to obtain bail from the Competent Court. In case, he is of the opinion that the
arrest is necessitated at a subsequent stage, it will be open to the Police Officer to take such
accused persons in custody. He should of course record his reason for making the said arrest as
provided under section 41 (1) (b) (ii).
8. Necessity of training to mediators.
We endorse the opinion of the intervening lawyers, the learned Government Advocate, Sri
Ashok Mehta, Organizing Secretary of the Mediation Centre of the Allahabad High Court and
the Government officials present, including the Secretary of the Legal Services Authority, that
training for mediators is a sine qua non for effective mediation. The Organizing Secretary of the
Allahabad High Court Mediation Centre (AHMC) and Secretary of the U.P. Legal Services
Authority (UPLSA) stated that the centre and authority are prepared to impart training to the
mediators. We welcome this offer and direct that there should be co-ordination between the

AHMC and UPLSA for giving effect to this offer. By and by as the State Government is able to
create a cadre of trainers for mediation, their services may also be utilised for training
mediators in the districts.
We think training is necessary because the responses to our queries from the subordinate
district courts reveal the poor success rate in the cases referred by the High Court or where the
concerned subordinate court has itself initiated the process of mediation. By contrast the
success rate at the Mediation Centre in the Allahabad High Court, which has independent
trained mediators (usually lawyers) is much higher. The first requirement for successful
mediation is the patience on the part of the mediator, and his willingness to give sufficient time
to the contesting parties and especially to the wife to express her bottled up grievances.
Thereafter, in a disinterested manner, the mediator should encourage the parties to come up
with solutions, giving useful suggestions for bringing about reconciliation, as the mediator
cannot impose his solution on the parties.
The guidelines hereinabove have been spelt out by the Court because of the specific request of
the officials and lawyers present to spell out the terms of the same, as guidance for the State
government (esp. the home department), the Legal Services Authority and the police for issuing
appropriate circulars or government orders.
(9) Should offences under section 498-A IPC be made compoundable?
We have received considerable feedback from subordinate judicial authorities that unless the
offence under section 498-A IPC is made compoundable, much benefit cannot be derived by
trying to bring about mediation between the parties. A dilemma then arises before the
concerned Court, (which cannot close the trial because the spouses have compromised their
dispute) or even before the aggrieved wife, if she decides to settle her dispute with her spouse
and in-laws either by agreeing to stay with them or to part amicably, usually after receiving
some compensation.
Even if she is no more interested in repeatedly visiting the court for prosecuting the accused, in
the absence of provisions for compounding the offence, she has willy nilly to perjure by making
a false statement that her initial report was untrue or lodged under influence of X or Y. If on the

basis of this statement the trial Court acquits the husband and his family members, and the
aggrieved wife returns to her matrimonial home, in the cases where she is again maltreated, if
she lodges a fresh report, its reliability will be open to question.
The Apex Court in Ramgopal v. State of M.P., 2010 SCALE 711 observed that an offence under
section 498-A IPC is essentially private in nature, and it should be made compoundable if the
parties are willing to amicably settle their dispute. Directions were given to the Law
Commission of India to consider the matter and to make appropriate recommendations to the
Government to bring about suitable amendments in the statute.
In Rajeev Verma v. State of U.P., 2004 Cri.L.J. 2956, which was a decision given by a bench in
which one of us (Amar Saran J) was a member, a similar suggestion was made to the Law
Commission of U.P. to recommend to the State government to make the offence under section
498-A IPC compoundable with the permission of the Court under section 320 Cr.P.C.
The reasons for the suggestion were that such FIRs are often lodged in the heat of the moment,
without reflection after a sudden quarrel, and sometimes as a result of wrong advice or
influences. But the complaining wife, who usually has no source of independent livelihood (as a
key problem in our society is the lack of economic and social empowerment of women) and is
unable to provide for herself in the future, may have to suffer later if the relationship with her
husband is irrevocably ruptured due to the hasty filing of the criminal case, particularly in view
of the fact that the offence is non-compoundable.
To meet this situation B.S. Joshi v State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 1386, Manoj Sharma v State,
2008 SC(Suppl) 1171, and Madan Mohan Abbot v State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969
recommended quashing of the complaint in proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C or in the writ
jurisdiction where the aggrieved wife compounded the offence. In the latter case it was
observed that where the dispute is purely personal in nature, (i.e. the element of the offence
being a crime against society is secondary), and the wife decides to compound the offence, as
there would be little likelihood of conviction, quashing of the offence should not be refused on
the hyper-technical view that the offence was non-compoundable "as keeping the matter alive
with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly

overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding
more effective and meaningful litigation"
The following passage in paragraph 12 in G.V. Rao v L.H.V. Prasad, AIR 2000 SC 2474 has been
cited with approval in B.S. Joshi:
"There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and
live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who could have counseled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case.
There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it
takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in
chasing their "cases" in different Courts."
In Rajeev Verma however relying on B.S. Joshi it was mentioned that whilst the trial could be
quashed in an application under section 482 Cr.P.C or under Article 226, being a fruitless
prosecution where there was little likelihood of conviction as the parties had settled their
dispute, but the proper forum for deciding the matter whether the compromise application was
voluntary and bona fide or whether it was coerced was the lower court which could decide
whether it was a fit case for granting permission to the wife to compound the offence under
section 320(2) Cr.P.C. This was only possible if the offence under s. 498-A IPC was made
compoundable with the permission of the Court.
A good option for providing recompense to the maltreated woman is "The Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005" which provides for a gamut of civil rights for the
aggrieved woman who has entered into a domestic relationship with a man, with or without
marriage. Such civil rights include "Protection orders" (section 18) prohibiting the respondent
from committing any act of violence, visiting the place of work, operating the common bank
locker, making telephonic contact etc. "Residence orders" (section 19), which restrain the

respondent from dispossessing a woman from the shared household, or from alienating or
renouncing his rights to the property or by directing him to remove himself, or by providing
alternate accommodation to the aggrieved woman at the existing level.
By providing "monetary reliefs" (sections 20 and 22) by paying for loss of earnings or medical
expenses, or loss due to destruction of property by domestic violence, or for maintenance of
the woman and her dependent children, or by payment of compensation for causing injuries
(including mental torture). "Custody orders" (section 21) for custody of the child to the woman
(including visiting rights) for the respondent. Criminal proceedings under this Act have been
allowed only as a last resort, under section 31 when the respondent commits a breach of a
protection order, or where at the stage of framing charges for breach of the protection order
he finds that an offence under section 498-A IPC has also been committed by the respondent.
The Act also provides under section 14 for the Magistrate to send a matter for "counselling"
before a registered "service provider," who is qualified to provide counselling in such matters to
the contesting parties or to provide shelter etc. to the aggrieved woman.
In the counter-affidavit dated 12.8.11 filed on behalf of the Home Secretary, U.P., it has
specifically been mentioned that the State government has given its consent to the Union of
India to make offences under section 498-A IPC compoundable, and the letter of the Home
(Police) Section-9 to the Union Home Ministry dated 4.2.10 has been annexed.
Whereas we appreciate this positive attitude of the State government in not objecting to
section 498-A IPC being made a compoundable offence. However we find that Andhra Pradesh,
by Act 11 of 2003 (w.e.f 1.8.03) has added section 498 A (wrongly described as 494 A) after
section 494 in the table in section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and has permitted the woman subjected to
cruelty to compound the offence with the permission of the Court, but added a proviso that a
minimum period of three months be allowed to elapse from the date of application for
compromise before a Court can accept the request, provided any of the parties do not
withdraw in the intervening period. The U.P. government may consider bringing out a similar
amendment, as it has already expressed its opinion that the offence under section 498-A IPC be
made compoundable.

Before parting we must clarify that the Court is of the firm view that acts of cruelty or violence
against women have neither ceased, nor have they been reduced, and the special provision for
meeting this problem must be retained in the statute book. We quote with approval the view
expressed in paragraph 11 of the recent Law Commission of India, Consultation Paper-cumQuestionnaire regarding section 498-A of Indian Penal Code:
"While the Commission is appreciative of the need to discourage unjustified and frivolous
complaints and the scourge of over-implication, it is not inclined to take a view that dilutes the
efficacy of s. 498-A to the extent of defeating its purpose especially having regard to the fact
that atrocities against women are on the increase. A balanced and holistic view has to be taken
on weighing the pros and cons. There is no doubt a need to address the misuse situations and
arrive at a rational solution - legislative or otherwise."
List this case on 8.11.2011 before the regular bench to be headed by one of us (Hon'ble Amar
Saran J)
The State government through the Chief Secretary, U.P., the Principal Secretary, (Home), U.P.,
Secretary Law/ L.R. U.P., Director General Police U.P., and Member-Secretary, U.P. Legal
Services Authority may issue appropriate guidelines or circulars for laying down a system for
proceeding in matters where reports are lodged of commission of offences under section 498 A
IPC where immediate arrests may not be necessary, for laying down the appropriate criteria in
this regard, and for sending the matters for mediation before the mediation cells in the Civil
Courts, in accordance with the aforesaid directions of this Court. The Principal Secretary,
(Finance), U.P. may apprise the Court as to the provision for finance for appointing social
workers/panel lawyers at the Mahila Thanas, for ensuring that appropriate training is given to
the social workers, legal aid lawyers, and concerned police officers for facilitating the mediation
process, for making available adequate infrastructure/ manpower at the mediation cells in the
Civil Courts, and for meeting expenses on other contingencies. Let the aforesaid authorities
submit their compliance reports within 4 weeks. We would also like reports from all the
Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authorities to submit their compliance reports
(through the District Judges) for getting the aforementioned minor matters relating to offences
under section 498 A IPC settled through mediation and the difficulties they encounter or forsee

in complying with the directions of this Court by the next listing. The State government is also
directed to submit its report on the next listing on the suggestion of the Court to take steps for
making the offence under section 498-A IPC compoundable with the permission of Court by
amending section 320 Cr.P.C in U.P. as has been done in the case of Andhra Pradesh. RegistrarGeneral is directed to forward copies of this order within a week to the Chief Secretary,
Principal Secretary, (Home), Law Secretary/LR, U.P., Principal Secretary (Finance), U.P., D.G.P.,
U.P., Member-Secretary, U.P., Legal Services Authority, U.P., Secretaries/ Civil Judges (Senior
Division) through District Judges in all districts in U.P., Sri Ashok Mehta, Organizing Secretary,
Allahabad High Court, Mediation Centre, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, and Sister Sheeba Jose, Advocates
for the intervenors, Government Advocate, U.P. and other advocates and officials present in
the hearing on 8.8.11 for information and compliance.
Order Date:- 30.9.2011 HSM.

ALLAHABAD HC_ Direction given to police & Magistrates on manner of remanding accused in
offences punishable upto 7 years in accordance with newly introduced section
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 46
Case: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17410 of 2011
Petitioner: Shaukin
Respondent: State of UP and others
Petitioner counsel: Mrs. Tabassum Hashimi, Ashwani Kumar Srivastava
Respondent counsel: Government Advocate
Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.
Hon'ble Kalimullah Khan, J.
1.A personal affidavit of the DGP, U.P. dated 11.10.11 has been filed and this Court is pleased to
note that in compliance of our earlier order dated 15.9.11. the DGP, U.P. has issued a circular
dated 3.10.11 addressed to all the regional IGs/ DIGs/ SSPs/SPs in-charge of all districts and
departmental heads of other police units to strictly enforce the newly introduced amendments,
viz. sub-section 41(1)(b) and section 41 A Cr.P.C and the directions contained in the order of

this Court dated 15.9.11 in Cr. Misc Writ Petiton No. 17410 of 2011, Shaukeen v State and order
dated 23.9.11 in Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. 18661/ 2011, Ram Abhilash and others v State.
2. It was also pointed out in the circular that the investigating officers who file counteraffidavits before the High Court do not have any knowledge about these provisions and how
they are to be applied.
3. The following observations in the order dated 15.9.11 have been quoted in the DGP's
circular: "Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the DGP, U.P. within one week by the
registry. The DGP may circulate this order to all police stations and investigating officers in U.P.
with directions to ensure strict and honest compliance with the provisions of sections 41(1)(b)
and 41 A Cr.P.C and to refrain from routinely arresting persons wanted in cases punishable by
imprisonment up to 7 years, unless in particular cases the exceptional circumstances
enumerated in section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C. exist, after recording his reasons for arrest. Let the DGP
submit his compliance report of this direction within three weeks."
4. Annexure 2 to the DGP's affidavit in compliance of our dated 15.9.11 also contains the
following endorsement from all 72 districts in U.P.: " / 
 "
5. The directions were issued by the DGP's circular dated 3.10.11 to the subordinate police
officials to clarify that ordinarily the police shall not immediately arrest accused persons
wanted in matters punishable with imprisonment upto 7 years. This limitation was subject to
the exceptions mentioned in the aforesaid amended sections.
6. By the present order we proceed to explain the import and meaning of the amended
provisions 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C, and to give some illustrations where accused could be
arrested straightaway on the lodging of the FIR, and other illustrations where immediate arrests
may not be needed, because we think that in many cases the police is still routinely proceeding
to arrest accused persons even if they are involved in offences punishable with up to 7 years
imprisonment, in contravention of the express terms of sections 41(1)(b) or 41 A Cr.P.C.
7. It would be useful to extract the material provisions, sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A, which have

been introduced by Act No. 5 of 2009, with effect from 1.11.2010 and also section 170(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, here :
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)-----------------(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) the police office has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or
suspicion

that

such

person

has

committed

the

said

offence;

(ii) the police office is satisfied that such arrest is necessary

(a)

to

(b)

prevent
for

such

person

proper

from

committing

investigation

any

of

the

further

offence;

offence;

or
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,
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.

41 A. 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 the 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.
170. Cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient. -(1) If, upon an investigation
under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is
sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused
under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police
report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or if the offence is bailable and the
accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such
Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until
otherwise directed.
8. The import of the said provisions is that normally where an accused has been named in the
FIR, and the offence is punishable with upto 7 years imprisonment, the arrest of the accused
may not be necessary at the initial stage and his attendance may be secured by issuing a notice
to him to appear before the police officer under section 41 A Cr.P.C. In such cases it would be
advisable to arrest the accused only after sufficient evidence of his involvement in the crime
has been collected and the charge sheet needs to be submitted. Under section 170(1) Cr.P.C. it

has been provided that on completion of investigation if sufficient evidence has been collected
the accused shall be forwarded in custody to the Magistrate concerned, unless he has been
released on bail (if the offence was bailable), in which event security may be taken for his
appearance before the Magistrate. This practice of not arresting the accused straightaway and
arresting them only after sufficient evidence has been collected is normally followed by the CBI,
and CB (CID) in their investigations.
9. Where however the accused has not been named in the FIR, or at the time when the coaccused have been picked up, for example in a case of vehicle theft or recovery of other stolen
goods, or where the co-accused has been arrested while committing a crime, and he names
another accused as also having participated in the crime, whose custodial interrogation may be
necessary and the police officer is of the opinion that the disclosure furnishes credible
information or gives rise to reasonable suspicion for inferring that this accused whose arrest is
sought could also be involved, or there are chances that such an accused would abscond or not
respond to a notice under section 41A to appear, looking to the nature of the crime and the
background of the particular accused, these maybe appropriate cases where immediate arrests
may be needed. Likewise where the accused whose arrest is sought appears to be habitually
engaged

in

committing

crimes

or

appears

to

be

participating in some organized crimes, and there is probability of the accused repeating the
offence, these would also be circumstances where it may be necessary to arrest such accused
without delay.
10. However in a case under section 498 A IPC where the wife subject to violence has gone
back to her "maika" following the violence, it may not be necessary in a particular case to
immediately arrest the husband and other family members who have been made accused in
the FIR until adequate evidence has been collected, as she is unlikely to encounter violence
when she is away from her "sasural." In E.C. Act offences again where the licences of a ration
card dealer named in the FIR has been suspended, he may not have any opportunity to again
indulge in blackmarketing or to commit a new offence under the E.C. Act. Here too arrests can
be deferred until sufficient evidence to submit a charge sheet has been collected, when he
needs to be produced before the trial court. But where the dealer is trying to obtain affidavits
from ration card holders and it appears that he is trying to win over witnesses, then it may be
open to the police to arrest him straight away. We have mentioned these examples as

illustrations for situations where arrests may or not be immediately needed and they are by no
means exhaustive.
11. It is with the objective of striking a balance on the need to provide the Constitutional
protection from arbitrary arrest guaranteed under Article 21 and the restraint on arrests for
offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, subject to certain exceptions as provided
for under section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and the need of the police to carry out its investigation
without interference, that we have refrained from passing blanket orders staying the arrests of
the accused in all such cases.
12. But we do expect the police officer to record reasons in a bona fide and honest manner,
why it has become necessary to arrest the accused in a particular case punishable with
imprisonment with upto 7 years. The police officer should not mechanically and routinely write
down in the case diary that there is likelihood of the accused running away, or presume that the
accused would not respond to the notice to appear under section 41 A Cr.P.C, or that he would
tamper with the evidence, unless there are strong reasons with concrete material for taking
such a view, and this satisfaction along with the concrete reasons for taking the view need to be
spelt out clearly in the case diary before the accused is arrested.
13. Thus strong reasons are needed for arresting an accused with respectable antecedents, who
is an income tax payee with roots in the community, and a permanent abode, no history of
earlier abscondance or non-cooperation with the police and who is not likely to tamper with
the evidence or to again commit a crime unless he is immediately arrested.
14. The propriety, honesty and genuiness of the reasons given for arrests in particular cases
punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and whether they conform to the
requirements of sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C. therefore need to be strictly monitored by
the superior officers, i.e. C.O.s/ S.P.s/SSPs or DIGs in the districts, as has been emphasized in
the DGP's circular dated 3.10.11. We make it clear that in the event that this Court finds that
the accused who are wanted in cases punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment are being
arrested in a routine and mechanical matter, without the existence of the conditions necessary
for arresting them as mentioned in sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C. this Court will have no
hesitation in summoning the concerned police officers or even the superior police officers and

they may even have to face contempt charges. For persistent unwarranted arrests in such
matters in violation of the provisions of sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A and the DGP's circular dated
3.10.11. we may even recommend disciplinary action against such errant police officers to the
DGP, U.P.
15. Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure also requires production of the case diary
before the Magistrate before whom the accused is produced for remand.
16.Section 167(1) reads thus:
167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. ----(1) Whenever
any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be
completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds
for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the
police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of subinspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the
diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the
accused to such Magistrate.
17. As rightly pointed out in Bir Bhadra Pratap Singh v D.M., Azamgarh, 1959 Cri.L.J 685 the
forwarding of case diary entries under section 167(1) Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality, and
the Magistrate is not simply to "rubber stamp" the prayer of the police officer seeking
remand of the accused, but he is to apply his judicial mind to satisfy himself that the
requirements of law are met when the police produces an accused for remand. At the time of
granting the remand we expect the Magistrate to examine the case diary for satisfying himself
whether the police officer's reasons for immediate arrest in the cases punishable with
imprisonment upto 7 years was held by him in a bona fide manner and whether the reasons for
remand are restricted to the pre-conditions for arrest mentioned in the newly introduced
sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C. The Magistrate needs to closely examine as to how the police
officer

could

reach

conclusion

that

unless

the

accused

was arrested he would repeat the offence, or why without arrest the investigation could not
proceed, or whether the particular accused was as a matter of fact likely to cause the

evidence to disappear, or would tamper with the evidence, or the accused would try and
influence witnesses, or without arrest the particular accused would not appear in Court.
These opinions of the police officer are to be based on concrete material and cannot be the
mere ipse dixit of the officer. If he finds that no genuine reasons which accord with the
requirements of sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A exist the Magistrate may even refuse to grant
remand to the accused, and allow the accused to be released on a personal bond with a
direction to appear before the competent court or before the police when called upon to do so,
with or without security.
18. There would be no impediment in the Magistrate remanding the accused to judicial custody
at later stages as authorized under section 41(1)(b)(ii)(e) and section 170(1) Cr.P.C. when the
accused is produced before the Magistrate and the case diary shows that sufficient evidence for
submitting a charge sheet has been collected. Needless to mention that in case the accused has
already secured bail, then the police officer would be disentitled to arrest an accused person
for seeking his remand because the charge sheet is to be submitted. The accused could then be
summoned to appear by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence in exercise of powers
under section 204 Cr.P.C.
19. If accused who are required in cases punishable with upto 7 years sentence are not
routinely arrested by the police, or are granted bail by the lower court itself, without any undue
delay in disposing of their bail applications, and in appropriate cases the facility of releasing the
accused on interim bails on personal bonds pending consideration of their regular bails with or
without security with a direction to appear when required is also extended to them, as has
been laid down in the Apex Court Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh V State of U.P., (2009) 4
SCC 437, the Full Bench in Amaravati and another v State of U.P., 2005 Cri.L.J. 755, and the
Division Bench in Sheoraj Singh @ Chuttan v State of U.P. and others, 2009(65) ACC 781,
considerable time of the High Court could be spent more productively in hearing single judge
and two judge appeals, or bails in grave matters. At present we find that most of the High Court
single and division benches on the criminal side are engaged in considering an inordinately
large number of applications for bail, applications under section 482 Cr.P.C., and Division Bench
criminal writ petitions in such matters punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, which could
easily be dealt with by the Magistrates and Sessions Courts.

DIRECTIONS:
20. We therefore direct the Magistrates that when accused punishable with upto 7 years
imprisonment are produced before them remands may be granted to accused only after the
Magistrates satisfy themselves that the application for remand by the police officer has been
made in a bona fide manner and the reasons for seeking remand mentioned in the case diary
are in accordance with the requirements of sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C. and there is
concrete material in existence to substantiate the ground mentioned for seeking remand. Even
where the accused himself surrenders or where investigation has been completed and the
Magistrate needs to take the accused in judicial custody as provided under section 170(1) and
section 41(1)(b)(ii)(e) Cr.P.C, prolonged imprisonment at this initial stage, when the accused has
not been adjudged guilty may not be called for, and the Magistrates and Sessions Courts are to
consider

the

bails

expeditiously

and

not

to

mechanically refuse the same, especially in short sentence cases punishable with upto 7 years
imprisonment unless the allegations are grave and there is any legal impediment in allowing the
bail, as laid down in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh V State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 437, and Sheoraj
Singh @ Chuttan v State of U.P. and others, 2009(65) ACC 781. The facility of releasing the
accused on interim bail pending consideration of their regular bails may also be accorded by the
Magistrates and Sessions Judges in appropriate cases.
21. The Magistrate may also furnish information to the Registrar of the High Court through the
District Judge, in case he is satisfied that a particular police officer has been persistently
arresting accused in cases punishable with upto 7 year terms, in a mechanical or mala fide and
dishonest manner, in contravention of the requirements of sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A, and
thereafter the matter may be placed by the Registrar in this case, so that appropriate
directions may be issued to the DGP to take action against such errant police officer for his
persistent default or this Court may initiate contempt proceedings against the defaulting
police officer.
22. The District Judges should also be directed to impress upon the remand Magistrates not to
routinely grant remands to police officers seeking remand for accused if the pre-conditions for

granting the remands mentioned in sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C. are not disclosed in cases
punishable with 7 year terms, or where the police officer appears to be seeking remand for an
accused in a mala fide manner in the absence of concrete material. The issue of compliance
with sections 41(1)(b) and 41 A Cr.P.C and the directions of this Court in this regard may also be
discussed in the monthly meetings of the District Judges with the administration and the
superior police officials.
23. We are also of the view that the Registrar General may issue a circular within a period of
one month with directions to the Sessions Courts and Magistrates to monitor and oversee the
applications for remand sought by the arresting police officers and to comply with the other
directions mentioned herein above.
24. The DGP, U.P. is directed to send a status report with better particulars by the next listing
as to the extent to which arrests are only being effected in cases punishable with upto 7 years
imprisonment strictly in accordance with the conditions mentioned in sections 41(1)(b) and 41
A Cr.P.C. We are not satisfied by the mechanical incantation of the words by the police of 72
U.P. districts: " /   ."
25.As already indicated above we are of the view that by routinely mentioning in the case diary
that a particular condition referred to in sections 41(1)(b) or 41 A Cr.P.C. has been met for
seeking police remand, would not provide adequate reason for effecting the arrest. The DGP is
also directed to circulate the present order to all subordinate police officers.
26. We are also of the view that the UP Legal Services Authority be directed to bring out
pamphlets for distribution in the legal literacy camps etc., or even issue news paper
announcement with headings such as "  
 ,"
informing the public that henceforth accused wanted in cases punishable with upto 7 years
imprisonment would get relief and not be routinely arrested because of the recent amendment
to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been enforced from 1.11.2010.
27. Let a copy of this order be sent to the DGP, U.P., Member Secretary, U.P. SLSA and District
Judges in all districts of U.P. for compliance and communication to all the concerned judicial

magistrates before whom the accused are produced for remand by the police officers within
ten days.
28. Let a copy of this order be also furnished to the learned Government Advocate forthwith.
29. Let a compliance report be submitted by the DGP, U.P., Member Secretary, U.P. SLSA and
District Judges by the next listing. The said authorities may also indicate the difficulties if any,
faced in complying with the aforesaid directions.
List on 14.12.2011.
Dated: 11.10.2011