Mandatory arrest safeguards and civil dispute principles led to compensation for unlawful detention and quashing of prosecution.

Mandatory arrest safeguards must be followed, including necessity of arrest, notice where arrest is not immediately required, arrest memo, intimation to relatives, and prompt production before a Magistrate. Repeated departures from these requirements rendered the arrest and detention unlawful, and the court recognised a public law remedy in compensation for the violation of liberty and dignity. The remaining FIR allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating; the dispute was essentially civil, and no sustainable basis remained to continue the prosecution. The criminal proceedings were quashed and the refusal to discharge was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arrest and detention of the petitioners were effected in accordance with the mandatory safeguards governing arrest and whether compensation was payable for unlawful curtailment of liberty; (ii) Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR disclosed any offence warranting continuation of prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether the arrest and detention of the petitioners were effected in accordance with the mandatory safeguards governing arrest and whether compensation was payable for unlawful curtailment of liberty.

Analysis: The arresting agency was required to comply with the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the settled safeguards governing arrest, including the requirements relating to necessity of arrest, issuance of notice where arrest was not immediately required, preparation of arrest memo, intimation to relatives, and production before the nearest Magistrate. The material on record showed multiple departures from these safeguards. The petitioners were arrested and transported in a manner that disregarded the prescribed procedure, causing humiliation and violation of liberty and dignity. In such circumstances, a public law remedy in compensation was attracted.

Conclusion: The arrest and detention were unlawful, and each petitioner was entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid by the State.

Issue (ii): Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR disclosed any offence warranting continuation of prosecution.

Analysis: The only surviving accusation was under cheating. The materials showed a commercial transaction that had been given a criminal complexion, while the essential ingredients of the alleged offence were not made out. The provision relating to offensive online messaging had already been struck down, and no sustainable basis remained to compel the petitioners to face trial on the facts disclosed. The dispute was essentially civil in nature and fell within the category of cases in which criminal process should not be allowed to continue.

Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed and the order declining discharge was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded. The petitioners were granted compensation for unlawful arrest and the criminal prosecution was terminated as an abuse of criminal process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where arrest is made in violation of mandatory procedural safeguards and the allegations disclose a civil dispute without the essential ingredients of the criminal offence, the constitutional court may grant public law compensation and quash the prosecution.

---