M. KATJU, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.K. Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the FIR dated 19-5-2000 (Annexure-1 to the petition) registered as Case Crime No. 144 of 2000 under Sections 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Khuthan, District Jaunpur.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1349. In that decision the Supreme Court observed (in paragraph 24):- "24. No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The Police Officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a Police Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitantsof the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to a person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do."
(3.) The Supreme Court also (in paragraph 23) referred to the Third Report of the National Police Commission that had suggested :-- "An arrest during the investigation of a cognizable case may be considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances :--i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc.,and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror stricken victims.ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law.iii) The accused is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint.iv) The accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is likely to commit similar offences again.";