9. It is the grievance of Saravanan that he found the accused in Crime No. 148 of 2017 standing in a shop near South Bazaar, which falls within the jurisdiction of Kovilpatti East Police Station and that he informed Paulraj about the presence of the accused within his jurisdiction, despite which, Paulraj did not effect arrest of the accused. Thus, for the alleged failure of Paulraj to arrest an accused, who is involved in an offence, registered by a different police station, the private complaint has been filed to prosecute him for dereliction of duty.
10. Saravanan seems to be unaware of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, [(2014) 3 MLJ (Crl) 353 (SC)], wherein the Supreme Court has stated that the police should not effect arrest mechanically and there should be sufficient grounds for arresting a person, since every arrest would abridge the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In M.C. Abraham vs. State of Maharashtra [2003 (2) SCC 649], the Supreme Court has held that even if the Anticipatory Bail application of an accused is dismissed, it does not mean that the accused should automatically be arrested by the police. It is again the discretion of the Investigating Officer to effect arrest or not and no Court can direct the Investigating Officer to arrest a person or take action against him under the Indian Penal Code for not arresting the accused.
PARTY: S.Saravanan vs. Mr.Paulraj, Inspector, Kovilpatti East Police Station – Crl.R.C. (MD)No. 66 of 2018 – 12.02.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/141980
