SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anuradha Goyal vs State & Anr. on 23 January, 2020


+ W.P. (Crl.) 2727/2019

% Date of decision: 23rd January, 2020

ANURADHA GOYAL ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Advocate.


THE STATE OF DELHI ….. Respondent

Through: Mr. Piyush Singhal, Advocate
for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, ASC for the State
with SI Jatan Singh and W/ASI Munni Khan
PS MS Park.




1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
petitioner is seeking directions to respondent no. 2 to arrest all the
accused persons in case FIR No. 302/2019 under Sections
323/341/354-B/506/509/34 IPC registered at Police Station
Mansarovar Park, Delhi.

2. Brief facts of the case as per FIR dated 21.08.2019 are that on
20.08.2019 at about 7:30 p.m. petitioner/complainant had left her
house along with her husband, namely, Amit for going to Ram Nagar.
They were going by rikshaw and when they reached near fly over of
Nathu Colony, four men came from back side on two motor bikes and
they stopped the petitioner and her husband. According to the
complainant, one of them was Rajinder Sharma and his son Arun

W.P. (Crl.) 2727/2019 Page 1 of 6
Sharma. The four men started beating complainant with bricks and
blows and gave filthy abuses. Rajinder Sharma tore her clothes and
his son Arun Sharma held her and other two persons pulled her hairs.
Rajinder Sharma held her body and his son molested her and
threatened to kill her and then they ran away. As per the complaint
the reason behind the incident was that the husband of the petitioner
had got booked building of Rajinder Sharma from MCD due to which
on 14.08.2019 Delhi Jal Board had cut off the water supply of the said
building. Statements of the petitioner and her husband were recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned ASC for
the State and have perused the status report.

4. As per the status report, notice under Section 14(A) Cr.P.C. was
served upon Rajinder Sharma and his son Arun Sharma to join
investigation on 24.08.2019 and they were interrogated in the present
case. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the
complainant/petitioner was recorded before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate. CDR and locations of the mobile phones of the
complainant and accused persons were obtained from the concerned
telecom companies and the relevant CCTV footage were also
collected. The relevant portion of the status report is reproduced as

“During investigation whenever the alleged persons were
called, they came and joined the investigation. During
interrogation alleged Rajinder Sharma and his son Arun Sharma

W.P. (Crl.) 2727/2019 Page 2 of 6
have stated that at the time of incident they were present at their
home i.e. at H.No. 1/3556, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and
they did nothing as alleges by the complainant. In this regard
they have provided some CCTV Footages and the same were
taken in police possession through seizure memo and sent to
FSL, Rohini for examination. The CCTV Footage was
examined and it was noticed that at the time of incident the
alleged Rajinder Sharma and his son Arun Sharma were present
at their home.

On 24.08.2019, alleged Rajinder Sharma and his son
Arun Sharma have joined investigation and interrogated in the
present case. Both the accused persons have been bound down
in the present case. Investigation of the case is in progress.”

5. It is not that in every case the police has to necessarily arrest the
accused persons. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2014 SC 2756 has held as

“Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974)-
Section 41 power of police to arrest without warrant–Police
Officer has to record reasons in writing which led him to
conclude that the accused is liable to be arrested without
warrant–Directions issued to ensure that Police Officer do not
arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize
detention of citizen, casually and mechanically. Petitioner,
apprehending arrest in a case under Section 498A of the Penal

W.P. (Crl.) 2727/2019 Page 3 of 6
Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, moved
for anticipatory bail, which was rejected. He approached the
Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail. The court expressed
dismay at the casual manner in which husband and his relatives
are arrayed as accused in an indictment under Section 498A and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Apex Court
pointed out that the casual manner in which accused in such
cases are arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
Emphasizing that the Police and the Magistrates should be more
circumspect in arresting the accused without warrant and in
committing them to judicial custody, Apex Court issued a series
of directions and; Held: 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 parameters
laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.P.C.; (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

W.P. (Crl.) 2727/2019 Page 4 of 6
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 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.P.C. 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 Magistrate concerned shall be liable for
departmental action by the appropriate High Court. We hasten
to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the
cases under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases
where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may be less than seven years or which may extend to
seven years; whether with or without fine.

W.P. (Crl.) 2727/2019 Page 5 of 6

5. The petitioner has joined the investigation and has been
interrogated by the Investigating Officer. No recovery of any sort is to
be made from them. In these circumstances, the petition lacks merits
and the same is hereby dismissed.

JANUARY 23, 2020/AK

W.P. (Crl.) 2727/2019 Page 6 of 6

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation