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?
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.: "जनपद / थाना तर पर आदे श का अनुपालन कड़ाई से कया जा रहा है" 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
a
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: "जनपद / थाना तर पर आदे श का अनुपालन कड़ाई से कया जा रहा है ." 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 "सात साल तक क सजा पाने वाले अभय ु त को राहत," 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
