Rini Johar v. State of MP, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 594

RINI JOHAR V. STATE OF MP

ISSUE:

Whether the arrest of the petitioners was in violation of the legal procedure under Section 41 and 41-A CrPC?
Whether the police violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 21 by unlawfully detaining and transporting them without due process?
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act were legally sustainable or an abuse of process?

RULE:

Arrest must comply with Section 41 and 41-A CrPC, requiring justification based on necessity, and a notice must be issued before arrest for offences punishable with up to seven years.
Arrest and detention must adhere to Article 21 safeguards, ensuring procedural fairness, dignity, and immediate production before a magistrate.
Criminal law cannot be misused for civil disputes; fraudulent intent at the time of the transaction is essential for invoking Section 420 IPC.

FACTS:

The petitioners, Dr. Rini Johar, a doctor pursuing higher studies in the U.S., and her mother, Gulshan Johar, a senior advocate in Pune, were implicated in a criminal case.
The dispute arose when Vikram Rajput (the informant) attempted to purchase an Aura Cam 6000 from a U.S. company, Progen, which directed him to petitioner no.1 (Dr. Rini Johar).
Rajput later opted for a lower-priced machine, Twinaura Pro, for ₹2,54,800, of which ₹2,50,000 was paid via handwritten receipt. He also took a laptop, agreeing to pay the balance later.
A dispute emerged regarding the transaction, leading Rajput to file a complaint with the Cyber Cell, Bhopal, alleging fraud of $10,500.
An FIR was registered under Sections 420, 34 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act, and arrest orders were issued by the Cyber Police, Bhopal.
On November 27, 2012, the petitioners were arrested from their residence in Pune without proper procedural compliance, including absence of arrest memos and independent witnesses.
They were taken to Bhopal in an unreserved railway compartment meant for disabled persons, denied medical attention and basic necessities, and were not produced before a local magistrate in Pune.
On November 28, 2012, they were produced before the Bhopal Magistrate, where petitioner no.2 (Gulshan Johar) remained in custody for 17 days, and petitioner no.1 (Dr. Rini Johar) for over three weeks before being released on bail.
The petitioners alleged they were coerced into paying ₹5 lakhs as a bribe to a police officer for their release.
On December 18, 2012, a charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate.
On February 19, 2015, the Magistrate discharged the petitioners from the charge under Section 66-D of the IT Act but found a prima facie case under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-A(b) of the IT Act.
The petitioners challenged the criminal proceedings in the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the FIR.
During the pendency of the High Court proceedings, on February 19, 2015, the petitioners filed a discharge application before the Magistrate, which was only partially allowed.
The petitioners moved the Supreme Court through a writ petition under Article 32, challenging their arrest, seeking compensation, and requesting quashing of criminal proceedings.

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled that the arrest of the petitioners was illegal as it violated Section 41 and 41-A of the CrPC, which require procedural safeguards, including issuing a notice before arrest for offences punishable with up to seven years.
The Court held that there was no justification for the arrest, as the investigating agency failed to demonstrate the necessity of taking the petitioners into custody, making the arrest arbitrary and unlawful.
The Court ruled that the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Article 21 were violated, as they were detained in a demeaning manner, transported under inhumane conditions, and denied their constitutional and statutory protections.
The Court ruled that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle civil disputes, holding that the allegations primarily involved a commercial transaction with no fraudulent intent at the inception, thus negating the charge under Section 420 IPC.
The Court quashed the criminal proceedings, emphasizing that the FIR did not disclose any ingredients of cheating, and upheld the principle that courts must prevent the misuse of criminal law in purely civil disputes.
The Court held that compensation must be awarded for the violation of constitutional rights, as public law remedy applies where state authorities act in an arbitrary and unlawful manner.
The Court ordered the State of Madhya Pradesh to pay ₹5 lakhs as compensation to each petitioner, holding the police officers accountable for their actions.
The Court ruled that Section 66-A of the IT Act was unconstitutional, following its decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, thereby nullifying one of the charges against the petitioners.
The Court quashed the entire criminal case and prosecution against the petitioners, declaring that the case was a civil dispute improperly given a criminal color and terminated all pending proceedings against them.
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the criminal proceedings, and directed compensation to be paid within three months, leaving it open for the State to take action against the erring officials.