guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition (W.P. 18449(W) of 2017) was filed by Srikanta Das complaining that an effective investigation was not being carried out into Purba Jadavpur Police Station Case No. 75 dated 03.07.2017 registered at his behest for offences under sections 354/323/341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The private respondents contended that there was a counter-case, Purba Jadavpur P.S. Case No. 74 dated 03.07.2017, registered at their behest under sections 354B/509/506/34 IPC. The State filed a report stating that investigation in both cases was in progress and that no arrests had been made. The report was taken on record. The writ petition was heard and disposed of by the court with directions described below.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether effective investigation is being carried out into Purba Jadavpur P.S. Case No. 75 (03.07.2017) registered at the petitioner’s behest.
2. How the investigating agency should proceed with apprehension of accused persons and further investigation in both the said cases, having regard to applicable judicial guidelines (specifically Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner complained that effective investigation was not being conducted in Purba Jadavpur P.S. Case No. 75 dated 03.07.2017 (sections 354/323/341/506/34 IPC).

Private Respondents' Arguments

• The private respondents submitted that Case No. 74 dated 03.07.2017 (sections 354B/509/506/34 IPC) was a counter-case to the petitioner's case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted the State's report that investigation in both cases was in progress and that no arrests had been made. Observing that the offences in both cases attract maximum imprisonment up to seven years, the court relied on the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar for the procedure to be followed in apprehending accused persons. The court also directed that statements of the victim ladies in both matters be recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Finally, the court instructed that investigation in both cases be carried to their logical conclusion in accordance with law and afforded the parties liberty to appear before the Criminal Court to ventilate their grievances.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

Direct consequences of the order:

• The investigating agency must follow the Arnesh Kumar guidelines when considering apprehension of accused persons in the two cases.
• Statements of the victim women in both cases are to be recorded under section 164 CrPC.
• Investigations in both cases are to be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with law.
• Parties are at liberty to appear before the Criminal Court and ventilate their grievances.
• No affidavit was called for; accordingly, the allegations in the writ petition shall not be deemed admitted by the respondents.

The opinion does not indicate that any new legal precedent was established; it applies existing guidance from Arnesh Kumar to the facts before the court.