The Karnataka High Court has recently said that no person should be arrested “in a mechanical manner” on a complaint in a matrimonial dispute, including an offence of cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relatives. The court, instead, directed the police to conduct a preliminary inquiry within 14 days before proceeding with arrests in matrimonial dispute cases to avoid illegal arrest and detention.Justice Suraj Govindaraj, in his order dated August 4, also issued a slew of directions to the Director General of Police (DGP) and instructed the officer to hold sensitisation and training programs for police officers to follow safeguards in arrest and detention, more particularly in cases related to complaints arising out of matrimonial disputes.The bench gave the directions while partly allowing a petition filed by 68-year-old P Javara Shetty and his son Naveen Kumar, 31, who had approached the court to initiate action against the inspector of Vidyaranyapura police station who allegedly arrested Kumar in 2014, and detained his father in a case registered by Kumar’s wife in March 2014.It also directed the Bengaluru Police Commissioner to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to Kumar and Rs 4 lakh to Shetty within three weeks.In matrimonial disputes cases, the High Court said the investigating officers shall “approach the probe with care and circumspection, and the criminal process shall not be permitted to be used as an instrument to coerce a party into meeting monetary or property demands, or into a settlement”.Over a decade-old illegal arrest caseKumar worked in the United Kingdom as a consultant and was taken into custody on his arrival at the airport, based on a lookout circular. His father, Shetty, claimed that he was allegedly assaulted while under detention.The petitioners argued that though Kumar had secured anticipatory bail on June 10, 2014, and the father was not named an accused in the chargesheet, the officer arrested Kumar without a non-bailable warrant.Story continues below this adThey argued that the present case demonstrates a deliberate abuse of police powers in collusion with the wife and her father. The LOC could not have been issued against Kumar as he was not deliberately evading the process of law or attempting to flee from the country.The court said, “Neither the registration of a first information report, nor the existence of a prima facie case by itself justifies arrest; the necessity to arrest must be separately satisfied by the investigating officer by recording reasons and by strictly following the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014).” The officer shall first put to himself the questions why arrest is required and what purpose it will serve.Moreover, the investigating officer should ascertain whether the person has secured any pre-arrest bail order from the competent court before arresting the accused, the court said.“No person shall be arrested in a routine or mechanical manner in any offence arising out of a matrimonial dispute, including an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), and more generally in any offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years,” the judge stated.Court findingsStory continues below this adThe bench, in its order, said, “The issuance of the LOC, the arrest of Kumar, and the seizure of his passport were not legal, and were not in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1983, the Passports Act, 1967, or the applicable executive instructions.”The bench said, “On production, the jurisdictional Magistrate herself noticed the subsistence of the anticipatory bail and the warrantless arrest and issued a show-cause notice to Respondent No.3 (Inspector), which shows that the order was known and capable of being produced. Even accepting that a copy had not been formally served, once the petitioners produced the order, Respondent No.3 was bound to give effect to it by securing release on bail in terms of Section 438(3), which he did not do.”Further, the bench noted that the inspector did not comply with the mandatory safeguards governing arrest, did not honour the order granting anticipatory bail, and acted contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.