1. Informing Relatives of an Arrest is not the Compliance of Constitutional Obligation to Inform the Arrestee of the Grounds for Arrest

Case Title: Vihaan Kumar vs. The State of Haryana And Anr

Date of order: 7th February

Coram:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N Kotiswar Singh

The Supreme Court on February 7 clarified the requirement on informing the person arrested about ground of his arrest and opined that informing a person’s relatives about his arrest does not exempt the police or investigating agency from their legal and constitutional obligation to inform the arrested persons themselves of the grounds for his arrest.

Factual Background of Case

• The division bench of the Supreme Court was hearing a matter in which the police had arrested the appellant without providing the grounds for the arrest, as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
• The state argued that the details of the appellant’s arrest, as recorded in the arrest memo, remand report, and case diary, fulfilled the constitutional requirement of informing the arrestee (the appellant) of the grounds for his arrest.
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court had dismissed the petition to declare the arrest illegal, prompting the appellant to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Laws providing Rights of the Person Arrested

• Article 22 of the Constitution of India provides for protection against unlawful arrest and detention. The provision contains:

1. No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.
2. Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.

• Following the Constitutional Mandate the Parliament has incorporated certain rights of the arrested person and duties of the police officer making arrest in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

1. Section 36 of the Sanhita provides that procedure of arrest and duties of officer making arrest.
2. Section 38 provides right of arrested person to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation.
3. Section 46 prescribes that the person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.
4. Section 48 imposes obligation on the person making arrest to communicate the information regarding arrest of a person and place where the arrested person is detained to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person.

Furthermore Section 47 of the Sanhita incorporates the Constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and prescribes that the person arrested shall be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.

Section 47 of BNSS: (1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.

(2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.

Observation made by the Division bench

• The Court dismissed the State’s contention that providing information about the arrest in the remand report, arrest memo, and case diary adequately fulfills the constitutional requirement to inform the arrestee of the grounds for arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court emphasised that these documents only record the fact of the arrest, not the reasons for it. It held a view that mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report is no compliance with the requirement of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest.
• The bench further dismissed the argument that that the appellant’s wife was informed about the arrest, holding that information of arrest to a relative is completely different from information of grounds of arrest and the compliance of law shall be made in strict sense by informing the arrested person himself of the grounds on which his arrest is made.
• The Apex Court went on to differentiate information recorded in arrest memo and the grounds of arrest and stated that the arrest memo incorporates the name of the arrested person, his permanent address, present address, particulars of FIR and Section applied, place of arrest, date and time of arrest, the name of the officer arresting the accused and name, address and phone number of the person to whom information about arrest has been given. This information is not considered as ‘grounds of arrest’. Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest.

Verdict

In light of the aforesaid observation, the Court held that the police did not comply with the Constitutional requirements of arrest and set aside the High Court’s decision and declared the arrest illegal.

2. Courts Should Be Cautious When Family Relations Are Involved In Criminal Proceedings

• Case Title: Geddam Jhansi & Anr. vs. The State of Telangana & Ors.
• Date of Order: 7th February
• Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

On Friday, February 7, the Supreme Court, while overturning the criminal charges of cruelty, dowry demand, and domestic violence against the appellants, emphasised that using criminal laws in domestic disputes without clear allegations and credible evidence could have harmful consequences for families.

Brief Background of the Case

• The criminal appeal before the Court involved offences under Section 498A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• The appellants were sister of the Mother-in-law of the complainant and her son.
• The appellants filed a special leave petition seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them for cruelty and dowry demand.
• The High Court, in its judgment, refused to quash the proceedings, stating that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants.
• The appellants then approached the Supreme Court to challenge this decision.

Observations Made by the Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court stressed upon the judicial approach while dealing with criminal proceedings involving family disputes and viewed that Courts shall be careful while assessing whether there are clear, credible allegations that justify the use of criminal law, ensuring that the legal process is not misused, and that family ties are not unnecessarily fractured.
• The Court was of view that domestic relationships, especially those between family members, are governed by strong social values and cultural expectations. And are considered sacred, requiring higher levels of respect, commitment, and emotional investment than other social or professional relationships. The preservation of family bonds has always been prioritised.
• The Court stated that when family disputes are brought into criminal proceedings, potentially damaging family ties, Courts should act cautiously. Criminal processes should only be invoked when there are specific allegations supported by credible evidence that clearly constitute criminal offences.
• At the outset, the Court reviewed the charge sheet and the complaint. It noted that the investigating agency had relied on the statements of the complainant, her parents, and two panchayat elders. After examining these statements, the Court observed that, regarding the harassment allegations, the complainant had only informed her parents about the incident. Therefore, they had not directly witnessed the alleged harassment.
• The Court then reviewed the statements of the other two witnesses and noted that their testimonies were hearsay. It also pointed out that, despite the panchayat elders being residents of Telangana, there was no explanation as to how they were present at the Panchayat meetings held in Chennai. Furthermore, the Court emphasised that while there were specific allegations against the complainant’s husband and mother-in-law, the allegations against the current appellants were vague and general in nature.
• In opinion of the Court, there may be instances where certain family members or relatives ignore the violence or harassment inflicted upon the victim and fail to offer assistance, but this does not automatically imply that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless there is clear evidence of their involvement or instigation. Therefore, implicating such relatives without specific allegations or evidence of their active role in the abuse, and proceeding against them without prima facie proof of complicity in the domestic violence, would constitute an abuse of the legal process.
• The Court further noted that while statutes like the Protection from Domestic Violence Act include close relatives within their scope, it is essential for courts to ensure that the allegations made are specific rather than general. At the same time, the Court recognized the need to handle genuine cases of cruelty and violence with the "utmost sensitivity."

Verdict of the Court

• Following the above observation, the Court concluded that no prima facie case had been established against the appellants. The evidence presented against them was solely based on the complainant’s testimony, without assigning any specific role to the appellants.
• As a result, the criminal proceedings against them were quashed, with the clarification that these findings would not impact the proceedings against the other accused individuals.