Supreme Court of India

AHMED NOORMOHMED BHATTIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: 2005 INSC 144
Decided: 16 March 2005
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: N SANTOSH HEGDE

Holding

Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code is constitutionally valid and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed.

Summary

Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatti challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against him on complaints of private respondents and sought a declaration that Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was unconstitutional. The Gujarat High Court dismissed his petition, holding that the provision was limited to a 24‑hour preventive arrest and did not violate Articles 21 or 22 of the Constitution. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether Section 151 is arbitrary, ultra‑vires, or infringes fundamental rights. The Court held that the statutory conditions and the 24‑hour limitation, read with the safeguards laid down in Joginder Kumar and D.K. Basu, render the provision constitutionally valid. It also found no ground to quash the criminal proceedings, which were initiated by private complainants and were not motivated by police animus. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s order.

Issues considered

Whether Section 151 of the CrPC is unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the power of arrest without a magistrate’s order under Section 151 is arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights.
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner can be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 107, s. 116(3), s. 151
Constitution of Indias. 21, s. 22
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 504, s. 506, s. 507

Subjects

Section 151preventive arrestconstitutional validityfundamental rightsArticles 21 and 22quashing criminal proceedingspolice powersCriminal Procedure CodeSupreme Court

Judgment

AHMED NOORMOHMED BHATTI ,A.
V.

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

MARCH 16, 2005

[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] ,B

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 :

Section 151-Constitutional validity of-Arrest and detention ofperson
without an order from Magistrate and without warrant under Section 151- C
·Held : Not arbitrary or ultravires the Constitutional provisions as the object
thereunder is to prevent the commission ofany cognizable offence-Constitution
of India, 1950-Articles 21 and 22.
. .4

Section 151-Criminal proceedings initiated by private party-Nothing
to show that police officials abused their authority under Section 151_..:.Held I)
: High Court rightly refused to quash the criminal proceedings.

Petitioner filed petition for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated
against him on complaint of respondents 5, 6 and 7 and for a declaration
that Section 151 CrPC was unconstitutional and ultra vires. Hig~ Court E
dismissed the petition holding that detention under Section 151 was only
for a limited period of 24 hours for the purpose mentioned therein and
did not offend the provisions of Constitution and there was no ground to
quash the proceedings. Aggrieved petitioner filed the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court F
HELD: 1. Section 151 ofCrPC is not unconstitutional and ultravires
the constitutional provisions. [887-B)

2.1. Section 151 lays down the conditions under which a police officer
may arrest a person without an order from a Magistrate and without a G
warrant. A Police officer can do so only if he has come to. know of a design
of the person concerned to commit any cognizable offence. A further
condition for the exercise of such power, is that the arrest should be made
only if it appears to the police officer concerned that the commission of
879 H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A the offence cannot be otherwise prevented. If these conditions are not
fulfilled and a person is arrested under Section 151, the arresting authority
may be exposed to proceedings under the law. [883-A-B, CJ

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992] Suppl. 1 SCC 335, referred
to.
B
2.2. A person so arrested shall be detained in custody for a period
not exceeding 24 hours. In the absen~e of anything else, on expiry of 24
hours, he must be released. The release, however, is not insisted upon only
when his further detention is required or authorized under any other
provision of the Code or of any other law for the time being in force. The
C detention thereafter is not under Section 151 CrPC. Section 151, therefore,
only provides for arrest of a person to prevent the commission of a
cognizable offence by him. The provision cannot be said to be either
arbitrary or infringing upon the fundamental rights of a citizen under
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. (883-C-D, E-Fl
D
·2.3. The statutory guidelines in-built in Section 151, read with the
requirement laid down in Joginder Kumar's case* and D.K. Basu 's case**
provide an assurance that the power shall not be abused and in case of
abuse, the authority concerned shall be adequately punished. A provision
cannot be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary and therefore
E unconstitutional merely because the authority vested with the power may
abuse his authority. (886-G-H; 887-A)
*Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 260 and
**D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, [1997) 1 SCC 416, relied on.

p 3. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner were
initiated by private persons, namely respondents 5 to 7. Police authorities,
namely respondents 2 to 4, were performing the statutory duties enjoined
upon them. Those proceedings were not motivated by any personal
animosity of the police officials concerned. The High Court rightly came
to the conclusion that those Proceedings do not deserve to be quashed
G under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the
CrPC. (887-C, DJ

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
109 of 2001.

H
A.N. BHATTI v. ST ATE OF GUJARAT [SINGH, J.] 881

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.96 of the Gujarat High Court A
in Crl. Appln. No. 95 of 1996.

Arvind K. Nigam, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Ms. Shomila Bakshi for the,
Appellant.

Sashank Adhyaru, Ms.Hemantika Wahi, Madhukar Varma, Ms. Archna B
Palkar Khopde, Abijat P. Medh, Assem Mehrotra, Ashok Shan, Mrs.Sunita
Sharma and Ms.Sushma Suri for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P. SINGH, J. The petitioner herein filed a petition before the High , C
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia
and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his petition, the .
petitioner prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against
him on the complaints of respondents 5, 6 and 7. He also prayed in the said ,
petition for a declaration that Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure D
is unconstitutional and ultra vires. The High Court by its impugned judgment
and order dated 4th April, 1996 in Special Criminal Application No. 95 of
1996 rejected the petition holding that there was no ground to hold that ,
Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was unconstitutional and
further there was no ground to quash the proceedings initiated against the
petitioner in which process has been issued. E
So far as the challenge to Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
is concerned the High Court has noticed the fact that the prayer for declaring
the provision as unconstitutional is not supported by factual assertions and
the writ petition lacked specific averments and allegations of fact on the basis
of which it was contended that the provision was ultra vires and F
unconstitutional. However, the High Court considered the arguments addressed
before it and rejected the same holding that the powers conferred upon the
police authorities under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were
well defined, and guidelines for their exercise are also found in the provision
so as to save it from the charge of being either arbitrary or unreasonable. The G
detention under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was only for
a limited period of 24 hours for the purpose mentioned therein and the said
provision, therefore, offended no provision of the Constitution. So far as the
criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner are concerned, they were
sought to be challenged on the ground of being mala fide, an abuse of the
process of Court and being untrue and unfounded. The High Court after H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] 2 S.C.R.

A· considering the facts of the case came to the conclusion that having regard
to the principles laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal:
[l 992] Suppl. l SCC 335 no case was made out for quashing the aforesaid
proceedings.

We may only notice a few facts which are necessary for the disposal
B of this petition. As urged before us by the counsel for the petitioner, on 11th
December, 1995 a complaint was made by respondent No. 5 to Dy ..
Superintendent of Police, Kutch-Bhuj regarding an incident which took place
on 9th December, 1995. In connection with that incident statements were
recorded on 13th December, 1995. It is alleged that on 16th December, 1995
C the petitioner was detained by the Inspector of Police, Bhuj, respondent No.
4, under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, he was
produced before the Magistrate and a Chapter Proceeding under Sections 107
& 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated against him on the
basis of the complaint of respondent No. 5. It is also not in dispute that FIR
No. 100/1996 dated 9th January, 1996 has been recorded against the petitioner
D alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 507
of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of respondent No. 6. Similarly a
First Information Report was lodged by respondent No. 7 against the petitioner
on 30th December, 1995 alleging commission of offences punishable unaer
Sections 506 (2), 507 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the First
E Information Reports lodged by the persons concerned, the police has
investigated the cases and taken necessary steps in the matters, and it was
stated before us that the Magistrates concerned have taken cognizance and
issued process in those cases.

Section 151 appears under Chapter XI of the Code of Criminal Procedure
F which relates to preventive action of the police. Sub-section (I) thereof
empowers a police officer to arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and
without a warrant, a person designing to commit any cognizable offence.
Section further requires that such an arrest should be made only if it appears
to such police officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise
prevented. Sub-section (2) of Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
G places a limitation on the period of detention by providing that no person
arrested under sub-section (I) shall be detained in custody for a period
exceeding 24 hours from the time of his arrest, unless his further detention
is required or authorized under any other provisions of this Code or any other
law for the time being in force.
H
A.N. BHATTI v. STATE OF GUJARAT [SINGH, J.) 883

A mere perusal of Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A
makes it clear that the conditions under which a police officer may arrest a,
person without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, have been,
laid down in Section 151. He can do so only if he has come to know of a·
de.sign of the person concerned to commit any cognizable offence. A further·
condition for the exercise of such power, which must also be fulfilled, is that B
the arrest should be made only if it appears to the police officer concerned
that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented. The Section,
therefore, expressly lays down the requirements for the exercise of the power
to arrest without an order from a Magistrate and .without warrant. If these
conditions are not fulfilled and, a person is arrested under Section 151 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the arresting authority may be exposed to C
proceedings under the law. Sub-section (2) lays down the rule that ~ormally
a person so arrested shall be detained in custody not for a period exceeding
24 hours. It, therefore, follows that in the absence of anything else, on expiry
of 24 hours, he must be released. The release, however, is not insisted upon
only when his further detention is required or authorized under any other D
provision of the Code or of any other law for the time being in force, It,
therefore, follows that if before the expiry of 24 hours of detention it is found
that the person concerned is required to be detained under any other provision
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or of any other law for the time being in

- force, he may not be released and his detention may continue under such law
or such provision of the Code. The detention thereafter is not under Section E
I 5 I of the Code of Criminal Procedure but under the relevant provision of
the Code or any other law for the time being in force as the case may be.
Section 15 I, therefore, only provides for arrest of a person to prevent the
commission of a cognizable offence by him. The provision by no stretch of
imagination can be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable or infringing F
upon the fundamental rights of a citizen under Articles 2 I and 22 of the
Constitution of India.

In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors: [1994] 4 SCC 260 this
Court observed : -
G
"8. The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time, the
crime rate is also increasing. Of late, this Court has been receiving
complaints about violation of human rights because of indiscriminate
arrests. How are we to strike a balance between the two?

9. A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges,
on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and responsibilities
on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and ,-
privileges of the single individual and those of individuals collectively;
of simply deciding what is wanted and where to put the weight and
the emphasis; of deciding which comes first - the criminal or society,
B
the law violator or the law abider; of meeting the challenge which
Mr. Justice Cardozo so forthrightly met when he wrestled with a
similar task of balancing individual rights against society's rights and
wisely held that the exclusion rule was bad law, that society came
first, and that the criminal should not go free because the constable
c blundered ... "

This Court laid down certain requirements in Joginder Kumar (supra)
for effective enforcement of the fundamental rights inherent in Articles 21
and 22(1) of the Constitution of India which require to be recognized and
D scrupulously protected. The requirements laid down are as follows : -

" l. An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he _so
requests to have one friend, relative or other person who is known to
him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told as far as is
practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.
E 2. The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is
brought to the police station of this right.

3. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who
was informed of the arrest. These protections from power must be
held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly.
F
It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person
is produced, to satisfy himself that these requirements have been
complied with".

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, [1997] l SCC 416 this Court has
G issued requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest and detention till
legal_ provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures. The
requirements laid down are : -

"(!) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the
interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear
H identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars
A.N. BHATTiv. STATE OF GUJARAT [SINGH, J.] 885

of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee A
must be recorded in a register.

(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee
shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such meqlO
shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member
of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality B
from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the
arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.

(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being he!~
in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up,
shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known C
to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon a~
practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the
particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is
himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.

(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee D
must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the.
arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid
Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned·
telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.

(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have ·. E
someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put
under arrest or is detained.

(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention
regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name p
of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest
and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody
the arrestee is.

(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined
at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present G
on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "Inspection
Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer
effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.

(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by
a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a H.
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health
Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health
Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as
well.

(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest,
. B referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his
record.

(I 0) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during
interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.

C (11) A police control room should be ·provided at all district and
State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the
place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer
causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the
police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice
board."
D
These requirements are in addition to the constitutional and statutory
safeguards and do not detract from various directions given by the Courts
from time to time in connection with the safeguarding of the rights and
dignity of the arrestee. This Court has also cautioned that failure to comply
with the requirements aforesaid, shall apart from rendering the official
E concerned liable for departmental action, also render him liable to be punished
for Contempt of Court.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that such requirements must be
laid down in the case of an arrest under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal
F Procedure. Counsel for the respondents conceded that the requirements laid
down in Joginder Kumar (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) apply also to an
arrest made under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .. As we
have noticed earlier, Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself
makes provision for the circumstances in which an arrest can be made under
that Section and also places a limitation on the period for which a person so
G arrested may be detained. The guidelines are inbuilt in the provision itself.
Those statutory guidelines read with the requirements laid down by this
Court in Joginder Kumar (supra) and D.K. Basu (supra) provide an assurance
that the power shall not be abused and in case of abuse, the authority concerned
shall be adequately punished. A provision cannot be held to be unreasonable
H or arbitrary and, therefore, unconstitutional, merely because the authority
A.N. BHATTI v. STATE OF GUJARAT [SINGH, J.] 887
vested with the power may abuse his authority. Since several cases of abuse A
of authority in matters of arrest and detention have come to the notice of this
Court, this Court has laid down the requirements which have to be followed
in all cases of arrest and detention.

We, therefore, find no substance in the contention that Section 151 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutional and ultra vires the B
constitutional provisions.

The next question is whether any interference by this Court is called for
in the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. As we have noticed
earlier, these proceedings have been initiated by private persons, namely
respondents 5 to 7. So far as the police authorities are concerned, namely C
respondents 2 to 4, they are performing the statutory duties enjoined upon
them. Those proceedings are not motivated by any personal animosity of the
police officials concerned. The proceedings have been initiated on complaints
made by private persons under the law and the proceedings are. pending
before the Courts which have jurisdiction to deal with them. The High Court D
has examined the matter and has come to the conclusion that those proceedings
do not deserve to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We entirely agree
with the High Court.

We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. E.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Section 151"Sign in to search