Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(v) That the directions of SHO P.S South Rohini and ACP, Rohini to IO ASI Ram Bhagat to arrest the Petitioners under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C was passed without considering the facts that neither there exist any allegation in the statement/complaint of Ct. Yogesh (complainant) which shows any design to commit cognizable offence nor there is satisfaction of IO that any offence under such design cannot be prevented unless the petitioners are arrested.

Power of arrest u/S 151 Cr.P.C originates only on the knowledge of a design to commit cognizable offence if it appears that the commission of offence cannot be prevented unless power of arrest is exercised. In this case once the complainant Yogesh was asked to leave to PS, even if it is assumed that there was apprehension or any design, there was no occasion left with the petitioners to commit that offence. It was not a case that Yogesh, as per Kalandra, was previously known to them.

12. The object of section 107 Cr.P.C is just to stop / prevent any possibility or apprehension of disturbance of public peace in the society and that danger to public peace and tranquility must be imminent, only than this section would come into play to stop it. The object of this section has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Rajender Singh Pathania v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 13 SCC 329 as under:

"17. The objects of Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C are of preventive justice and not punitive. Section 151 should only be invoked when there is imminent danger to peace or likelihood of breach of peace under Section 107 Cr.P.C. An arrest under Section 151 CA No.22/2022 Neelam & Ors. Vs. State 7/15 can be supported when the person to be arrested designs to commit a cognizable offence. If a proceeding under Sections 107/151 appears to be absolutely necessary to deal with the threatened apprehension of breach of peace, it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to take prompt action. The jurisdiction vested in a Magistrate to act under Section 107 is to be exercised in an emergent situation.
2005 SCC (Cri) 794 : AIR 2005 SC 2115], SCC p. 650, para
5.) (See also Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. [(1994) 4 SCC 260 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1172 : AIR 1994 SC 1349] and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) 1 SCC 416 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 92 : AIR 1997 SC 610])".

In Kishor and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors Cri. W P No. 183/2014 Honble High Court of Judicature at Bombay held that :

"Knowledge to the police officer of a design to commit any cognizable offence and formation of opinion by the concerned police officer that the commission of offence cannot be prevented unless preventive action is aken against proposed offender is sine qua non for taking preventive action as per section 151(1) of Cr.P.C. Depriving a person of his liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be left to the whims and wishes of police officers, and if it is permitted it would be conferring arbitrary and unbridled powers on the police officials/authorities. It is important to note that knowledge of the police officer about the design to commit any cognizable offence by a person has to be reflected from the record showing the details of proposed preventive action against that person".