Read Time: 05 minutes
The bench also observed that the investigating officer did not communicate to the applicant that his arrest was under which provisions and for which offence
The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Police to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to a man who was wrongfully arrested.
The division bench of the high court at Aurangabad, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar, was hearing a petition filed by the man seeking to quash the FIR filed against him. He was booked under Sections 66A and 67A of the IT Act.
The man and his estranged wife were in the process of getting divorced. The wife filed a complaint against him, alleging that he sent a message to her relative claiming she used to make explicit videos with him. The police officer, who was her brother, filed a case against the man.
In its order, the high court noted that, despite Section 66A being struck down by the Supreme Court, the petitioner was still booked under it.
“It is beyond imagination that before the arrest the Investigating Officer will not apply his mind, as to which are the sections those are invoked, what is the punishment, that is, prescribed and whether he can make a legal arrest in such situations ? The realization of the wrong section, after the arrest of a person, would be a suicide attempt by an Investigating Officer, because he is bound to follow the law before and at the time of effecting arrest. The Investigating Officer should take note of Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure,” the order reads.
The bench also observed that the investigating officer did not communicate to the applicant that his arrest was under which provisions and for which offence.
“It is not stated that when the accused was given information as to the ground of arrest, then at that time which sections were told to him, in other words, respondent No.3 is not explaining as to what he communicated to applicant that his arrest is under which provisions and for which offence. Therefore, we take that it would have been certainly disclosed that his offence was under Section 66-A and 66-B of the I.T. Act when arrested. We are constrained to observe that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli (Court No.1) has also not taken into consideration as to whether the arrest was necessary and whether it was under the provisions of law or not,” the order reads.
Therefore, the bench proceeded to quash the case against the petitioner.
Case title: Ashwinkumar Sanap vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
