HC Holds WhatsApp Notice Invalid; Arrest Violates Section 41A, Officer Held in Contempt:

HC Holds WhatsApp Notice Invalid; Arrest Violates Section 41A, Officer Held in Contempt

The petitioner, Ravi Meena, was arrested on 01.02.2023 in connection with an FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC provisions by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur. Prior to arrest, the Investigating Officer sent a notice dated 25.01.2023 through WhatsApp requiring his appearance. The petitioner responded promptly, citing his wife’s illness and sought reasonable time to comply. However, without issuing any fresh notice in accordance with law or following prescribed modes of service, the police proceeded to arrest him.

It was the petitioner’s case that such arrest was in clear violation of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and the binding directions of the Supreme Court, particularly those laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI. He therefore invoked contempt jurisdiction alleging willful disobedience by the police officer.

Main Issue: Whether arrest without proper service of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and reliance on WhatsApp communication, violates Supreme Court guidelines and attracts contempt jurisdiction.

HC's Decision: The High Court held that the action of the Investigating Officer was in clear breach of the statutory mandate and binding judicial directions. It observed that service of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. must strictly follow the prescribed legal procedure, and communication through WhatsApp cannot be treated as valid service. Despite the petitioner’s response seeking time, no lawful attempt was made to serve notice through recognised modes such as personal service, affixation, or post.

The Court emphasized that arrest cannot be made mechanically and must comply with safeguards protecting personal liberty under Article 21. The failure to follow due procedure, coupled with immediate arrest, demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Thus, the Court held Respondent No.1 guilty of contempt for willful disobedience of the directions in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil, and listed the matter for sentencing.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below