CrPC 1973 - The Legal Chamber

Arrest Without Written Reason? Supreme Court Says It’s Illegal in Landmark Ruling

21Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Arrest Without Written Reason? Supreme Court Says It’s Illegal in Landmark Ruling

The Supreme Court held that the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) requires the grounds of arrest to be furnished in writing to the arrestee in a language they understand, without exception, for all offences. Failure to do so renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, subject to a limited exception for certain in-the-moment offences where written grounds must be supplied at least two hours before the remand hearing. Facts Of The Case: On July 7, 2024, a white BMW, allegedly driven at high speed by Mihir Rajesh Shah, collided violently with a scooter from behind in Worli, Mumbai. The impact threw the scooter's male rider to the side and trapped his wife under the front left wheel and bumper of the car. Despite this, the driver allegedly continued driving, draggi...

Supreme Court Sets Aside Quashing of Dowry Case, Reiterates Limits of High Court’s Power

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC by conducting a "mini-trial" on the credibility of allegations. The power to quash an FIR is to be exercised sparingly and only when allegations, taken at face value, disclose no cognizable offence. The existence of prima facie allegations necessitates permitting the investigation to proceed. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Muskan, married respondent No. 1, Ishaan Khan, on 20.11.2020. After five to six months of marriage, she alleged that her husband and his family (respondents 1 to 5) began harassing and taunting her for insufficient dowry. Specific incidents included being slapped by her brother-in-law on 22.07.2021 and, on 27.11.2022, her husband demanding Rs. 50 lakhs from h...

Supreme Court Rules: Vague and Omnibus Aren’t Grounds to Quash FIR If Specific Allegations Exist

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, ruling that the allegations contained specific details of dowry demands with dates and particulars, which prima facie disclosed offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court clarified that factual defences like misrepresentation are to be adjudicated at trial and cannot be grounds for quashing at the preliminary stage. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR lodged by the first appellant, Krishnakant Kwivedy, against the respondents for offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint alleged that negotiations for the marriage between the second appellant (Kwivedy's daughter) and the fifth respondent broke down due to dowry demands. Specific allegations w...