Service Of Notice U/S 41A CrPC Through WhatsApp Or Other Electronic Modes Not Valid: Rajasthan High Court
The petition alleged wilful disobedience of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has held that service of notice under Section 41-A of the CrPC through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be treated as valid service in law and failure to follow the mandatory arrest safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court, expose police officers to contempt proceedings.
The Court was dealing with a civil contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, which were framed to prevent arbitrary arrests and protect personal liberty. The petitioner challenged his arrest dated February 1, 2023 in connection with an Anti-Corruption Bureau case registered for offences under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 along with Section 120-B IPC.
Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed, “It is to be noted that ordinarily notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. is required to be served personally upon the noticee and in circumstances where personal service is not feasible, the notice may be pasted at the residence of the person concerned or sent through recognized modes such as speed post and admittedly, none of these procedures were adopted by the Investigation Agency in the present case. The intimation made through WhatsApp does not satisfy the statutory requirement of service contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., and therefore cannot be treated as a valid service of notice in the eyes of law”.
“This Court is conscious of the fact that the principle of personal liberty occupies a central and cherished position within the constitutional framework. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure prescribed by law is not an empty formality; it constitutes the essential safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty. It is also to be borne in mind that when statutory protections such as those embodied in Sections 41-A of Cr.P.C. are provided to regulate the exercise of arrest powers, the investigating agency is duty-bound to observe them scrupulously and any deviation from the same strikes at the very foundation of the constitutional guarantee of liberty”, the Bench further observed.
Advocate Mohit Khandelwal appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Ghanshyam Singh Rathore appeared for the respondent.
According to the petitioner, the Investigating Officer had sent a notice dated January 25, 2023 through WhatsApp directing him to appear before the police. The petitioner responded immediately and sought reasonable time citing his wife’s illness. Despite such communication and without effecting proper statutory service of notice, the police proceeded to arrest him.
The petitioner therefore sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the police officials for deliberate non-compliance with the law declared by the Supreme Court.
Opposing the petition, the respondents justified the arrest by submitting that the petitioner had adopted an evasive approach and failed to comply with the notice issued to him. It was argued that the arrest was effected under Section 41(1)(b) CrPC after preparation of the statutory checklist and recording of reasons. The State also pointed out that earlier attempts by the petitioner to quash the FIR had failed before both the High Court and the Supreme Court, suggesting that the contempt proceedings were initiated only to pressurize the investigating agency.
Observing that the law laid down by the Supreme Court aims to prevent unnecessary arrests and safeguard constitutional liberty, the Court framed two core questions for determination: whether the petitioner’s arrest violated Section 41-A CrPC and Supreme Court directions, and whether such violation amounted to wilful disobedience attracting contempt jurisdiction.
The Bench thus noted, “The conduct of the Investigating Officer, therefore, demonstrates a clear departure from the procedure prescribed under the Code as well as the binding directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and later on reiterated in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). The safeguards laid down in the aforesaid judgments are intended to ensure that arrest is not made in a mechanical manner and that the power of arrest is exercised strictly within the parameters of law”.
“…even assuming that the Investigating Officer had visited the petitioner’s residence and did not find him present, it was incumbent upon the officer to ensure service of notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., in accordance with law, including by affixing the notice at the residence or at any conspicuous place. The failure to adopt such recognised modes of service undermines the contention of due compliance with the statutory mandate”, it further noted.
The Court also took note of Standing Order No.11/2022 issued by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, prescribing the procedure for issuance and service of notices under Section 41-A CrPC. The standing order itself mandated formal service in accordance with Chapter VI of the Code and warned that non-compliance could result in disciplinary as well as contempt action.
Cause Title: Ravi Meena v. Pushpendra Singh Rathod & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:11960]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mohit Khandelwal, Pranav Sharma, Pankaj Maderna, Hitarth Dixit, Advocates.
Respondents: Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, Santosh Singh Shekhawat, Advocates.