Karnataka High Court says no ‘mechanical arrests’ in matrimonial dispute cases

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that police should refrain from making "mechanical arrests" in matrimonial dispute cases, including offenses of cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. The court mandated the police to carry out a preliminary inquiry within 14 days before arresting anyone involved in such disputes, aiming to prevent unlawful arrest and detention.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued these instructions on August 4, 2023. Additionally, the judge directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to conduct sensitization and training programs for police officers to ensure they adhere to proper arrest and detention protocols, especially in cases involving matrimonial disputes.

The court's ruling was a response to a petition filed by 68-year-old P Javara Shetty and his 31-year-old son Naveen Kumar. The petitioners accused an inspector from the Vidyaranyapura police station of arrest and detention of Naveen Kumar in 2014 without proper legal grounds. The incident occurred in March 2014 when Kumar's wife filed a complaint against Kumar. The High Court also ordered the Bengaluru Police Commissioner to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation to Naveen Kumar and Rs 4 lakh to his father within three weeks.

The court emphasized that in matrimonial dispute cases, investigating officers must approach the matter with caution, ensuring that the criminal process is not used as a tool to coerce individuals into meeting monetary demands or settling disputes. In a specific case involving Kumar, who had worked in the United Kingdom as a consultant, he was arrested upon his arrival at the airport based on a lookout circular.

Kumar had been granted anticipatory bail on June 10, 2014, but he was still arrested without a non-bailable warrant. The court stated that the issuance of a lookout circular (LOC) and the arrest of Kumar without a valid warrant were unlawful and did not comply with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1983, or the Passport Act, 1967.

The court noted that the arrest was carried out in violation of mandatory safeguards for arrest and that the officer had not honored the anticipatory bail order, disregarding legal procedures.