Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

High Court Sets Aside Order U/S 82 Cr.P.C in Dowry Case, Emphasizes Supreme Court Guidelines on Arrest Procedures

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jharkhand, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, set aside an impugned order dated 20.10.2023 related to a case under Section 498A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code). The case, Vishwamitra Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another (W.P.(Cr.) No. 958 of 2023), saw a detailed discussion on the guidelines for issuing processes under Section 82 of the Cr.PC (Criminal Procedure Code) and the protocols for anticipatory bail.

In his judgment, Justice Dwivedi underscored the importance of adhering to Supreme Court guidelines when considering arrest and coercive measures, especially in cases under Section 498A IPC. He stated, “This aspect of the matter if the case is arising out of section 498A IPC was earlier considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 723.”

The petitioner, Vishwamitra Singh, challenged the order that was issued under Section 82 Cr.PC in connection with Dhanbad Mahila P.S. Case No.30 of 2023. The court noted that the petitioner had already complied with notice under Section 41A Cr.PC and appeared before the investigating officer, which was a significant factor in the decision.

Justice Dwivedi also referenced the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I (2022), reiterating the importance of judicial discretion in issuing processes under Section 82 Cr.PC. The court’s decision to set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the lower court for fresh proceedings signifies a meticulous application of legal principles and Supreme Court directives.

Legal experts view this judgment as a reaffirmation of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for balance between the powers of law enforcement and the rights of individuals, especially in cases involving family disputes under Section 498A IPC.

Date of Decision: 10.11.2023

Vishwamitra Singh VS The State of Jharkhand and Another   

Similar News