Jharkhand High Court Convicts Two Police Officers for Unlawful Arrests of Flipkart Staff in Delivery Dispute
In a significant judgment, the High Court of Jharkhand in Irshad & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., Cont. Case (Civil) No. 387 of 2024, addressed allegations of contempt against state officials for violating Supreme Court directives concerning arrests under Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan, delivered its verdict on December 17, 2024, holding two police officials guilty of contempt and imposing disciplinary measures for procedural lapses.
The petitioners, employees of Instakart, a logistics arm of the Flipkart Group, were arrested in connection with FIR No. 88/2024, registered at Jagarnathpur Police Station, Ranchi. The allegations stemmed from a dispute involving delivery delays and the insistence on OTPs for confirmation of orders placed by the complainant. The petitioners argued that their arrests violated established legal protocols, particularly the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022).
The FIR charged the petitioners under Sections 419, 420, 469, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offenses punishable with imprisonment extending to seven years. The petitioners contended that the arrests were carried out without prior issuance of a notice under Section 41-A CrPC and without any justification as required under Section 41(1) CrPC.
The Court scrutinized several procedural irregularities in the actions of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, the Officer In-Charge and Investigating Officer, respectively. These included:
- Non-Issuance of Notice under Section 41-A CrPC:
The Court noted that the police failed to issue notices under Section 41-A CrPC, which is mandatory in cases where arrest is not required. It emphasized that the absence of such notices reflected non-compliance with statutory obligations. - Improper Justification for Arrest:
The arrests were based on a pre-printed checklist mechanically filled out by the officers. The Court observed that such practices indicated a lack of application of mind. “The checklist was used as a perfunctory formality, failing to demonstrate necessity for arrest as mandated by law,” the judgment stated. - Failure to Distinguish Civil/Commercial Disputes from Criminal Offenses:
The allegations, at best, pertained to delivery discrepancies, a matter of civil or commercial nature. The Court observed, “Insistence on an OTP for order confirmation cannot be equated with cyber fraud, nor can it justify the deprivation of liberty.” - Non-Adherence to Supreme Court Precedents:
The Court observed that the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil directed law enforcement agencies to ensure arrests are not made casually or mechanically. The Court stated, “The actions of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 exhibit blatant disregard for judicial directives aimed at safeguarding personal liberty.” - Judicial Oversight during Remand:
The Magistrate who authorized judicial custody failed to ensure compliance with procedural safeguards, including the proper recording of reasons for arrest, as required by law.
The Court found Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 guilty of willful disobedience of Supreme Court directives. It observed, “The arrest of the petitioners was arbitrary and unwarranted, violating their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The Court sentenced the officers to one month of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 each. However, the sentence was suspended for four weeks to allow them to appeal to the Supreme Court. Additionally, the State was directed to conclude disciplinary proceedings against the officers within six months.
The Court awarded costs of Rs. 50,000 to each petitioner, to be borne equally by the two officers. The petitioners were also granted liberty to pursue further legal remedies for wrongful arrest.
Case Title: Irshad & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Case Number: Cont. Case (Civil) No. 387 of 2024
Bench Details: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan
