Preventive Arrest Under Sections 107/151 CrPC Needs Cogent Material, Not Proforma Orders: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner, a law student, accompanied a relative to a counselling session at the Mahila Suraksha Salah Kendra on 12.06.2020, after the relative's wife had made a police complaint in their matrimonial dispute (para 2). He allegedly raised his voice during the session, was detained for that reason under Sections 107 and 151 CrPC, and produced before the Executive Magistrate on 13.06.2020 (para 3). The ACP-cum-Executive Magistrate passed an order that day; the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro dismissed his criminal appeal on 03.12.2020 (paras 1, 17). In person, he alleged he was detained in revenge for a complaint against a counselling-centre employee, and sought quashing, a declaration that the arrest was illegal, and compensation (paras 4-5).

The Court held that Sections 107 and 151 CrPC are preventive provisions that require a reasonable apprehension of a breach of peace or of a cognizable offence; they cannot be invoked arbitrarily or as a tool of harassment (paras 6-7, 9). Relying on Istkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it said Section 107 is preventive, not punitive (para 8). The Executive Magistrate's half-printed, half-written proforma order showed non-application of mind; he acted as a rubber stamp for the police instead of applying independent judicial reasoning (paras 6, 10-11, 16). No material showed the petitioner was about to commit a cognizable offence, and no immediate threat or lawful reason for the arrest (paras 6, 14). He was neither an accused nor a party to any case, raised voices during counselling do not justify arrest, and the FIR in the matter was lodged only on 15.07.2020 (paras 18-19). Holding him for 24 hours before production before the Magistrate was unlawful under Article 21 (para 15). The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal without examining the Magistrate's order (para 17). It found such misuse by ACPs acting as magistrates recurring (para 21).