JUDGMENT : 1. The proceeding is fled for giving direction to the respondent No.1 to start departmental action of respondent Nos.2,3,5 and 6 in respect of CR No.13/2015 registered with Sonkhed Police Station, District Nanded. Direction is claimed against the respondents to see that compensation is paid for the action taken against the petitioner in CR No.13/2015. In the past relief was also claimed for quashing of the order made by the State Human Rights Commission in a proceeding which was fled by the present petitioner. The Human Rights Commission has rejected the complaint and the matter is closed. Subsequently this relief came to be deleted. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is in business of selling iron in village Sonkhed. His marriage with respondent No.4 took place on 20-5-2005. Parties are Hindus. It is his contention that there was some dispute between him and his wife and due to that dispute respondent No.4 left his company and she started living with her parents in Nanded. It is his contention that he tried to bring back his wife but he failed in that attempt and then he was required to file proceeding for divorce against her in Civil Court Senior Division Kandhar. The present petition came to be fled on 3-9- 2018. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.5 is working as Constable in Sonkhed Police Station and as respondent No.4 is her sister she is misusing her post. It is contended that he had given complaint against respondent No.5 on 15-9-2014 that she had tried to kidnap his daughter who was in his custody but no action is taken against respondent No.5 by her superior officers. It is contended that when his wife, respondent No.4 fled complaint against him crime, CR No.13/2015 came to be registered for offences punishable under sections 498-A, 504, 506 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that in the said crime application was made by police to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Loha for permission to arrest the accused but the Magistrate had expressed that there was no need of permission and it was open to police to make arrest if the conditions laid down in section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are complied with. It is contended that on 18-5- 2015 respondent No.3 arrested the petitioner and his relatives and they were produced before Judicial Magistrate Loha. It is contended that the Judicial Magistrate asked police to release the petitioner and his relatives forthwith as the procedure necessary for effecting arrest was not followed. It is contended that the procedure given in section 41 of the Cr.P.C. and the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) AIR SC 2756 were not followed. It is contended that arrest of the petitioner was illegal and so the action needs to be taken against the police officers and compensation needs to be paid to the petitioner. 4. The record of the complaints given by the two sides against each other is produced. The record contains copy of Hindu Marriage Petition fled by the petitioner in the year 2012. The copy shows that on 30-1-2014 proceeding came to be disposed of due to default, for not taking necessary steps by the present petitioner. Thus on the date of the present petition no proceeding which was fled by the petitioner against his wife was pending. 5. It is not disputed that before giving of the report to police, attempts were made to settle the dispute and in the year 2013 in Sonkhed Police Station application was given by present petitioner and inquiry into the application was made. Report was submitted to the District Superintendent of Police Nanded to the effect that there was no fault on the part of the wife of the petitioner and the petitioner was probably feeling that the wife may give report against him under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and due to that he was approaching police. On 15-9-2014 he had given complaint against his wife and this time he had made complaint against the sisters of the wife also as they were working in Police Department. He had made allegation against them that they were giving threats to him and they were asking him to give divorce and also money. In the year 2014, in October, he had given complaint against the sisters of the wife and he had asked the superiors to take action against them. He had made allegation against them that they were giving threats to him and they were asking him to give divorce and also money. In the year 2014, in October, he had given complaint against the sisters of the wife and he had asked the superiors to take action against them. Thus it is the petitioner who first approached police against his wife and the sisters of the wife and ultimately on 13-3-2015 the wife of the petitioner gave report against him. 6. In the report given by Komal, wife of the petitioner she has made allegation that the petitioner was expressing grievance that when huge dowry was given in the marriage of Kavita, sister of respondent No.4, similar amount was not given to him by the parents of his wife. He had then started harassing the wife by asking her to bring Rs.3 lakh and gold ornaments of 10 tolas. At that time the sisters of the wife of the petitioner had joined Police Department so he was thinking that they were able to meet his demand. When the demands were not met with, ill-treatment was increased. Specific incident of 11- 11-2011 is mentioned and it is the contention of the wife that even when she was pregnant she was severely beaten and then he had called her relatives and had asked them to take the wife to the parents' house. It is contended that in the presence of her brother also she was beaten and then ultimately she was driven out of the matrimonial house. She went to the parents' house and there she gave birth to third child. Thus, she has three issues from the petitioner. It is her contention that the husband does not want to resume cohabitation and he did not provide anything for her maintenance and maintenance of newly born child. In the F.I.R. she contended that as the illtreatment was increased she was required to give report. Thus on 13-3-2015 frst time the crime came to be registered against present petitioner and prior to that petitioner was approaching police by giving complaint against his wife and sisters of his wife. 7. There is a record to show that after registration of the crime, police had approached concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class and had requested for permission to arrest the accused as there were allegations of aforesaid nature. 7. There is a record to show that after registration of the crime, police had approached concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class and had requested for permission to arrest the accused as there were allegations of aforesaid nature. This application dated 21-3-2015 came to be disposed of with the observations that it was open to police to make arrest if the conditions laid down in section 41 of the Cr.P.C. are satisfied. It appears that on 18-5-2015 the present petitioner and his relatives came to be arrested and they came to be produced before the Judicial Magistrate. Magisterial Custody Remand was demanded. On the same day the learned Judicial Magistrate passed order and observed that police had failed to give reasons for arrest and there were no justifiable grounds for the arrest of the accused. So magisterial custody was not granted and direction was given to release them without even obtaining bonds from them. Thus, the order came to be passed by the Magistrate on 18-5-2015 and the present proceeding came to be fled on 3-9-2018. The petitioner had fled application to the Superintendent of Police on 14-7-2015 and he had made allegations against police that they unnecessarily arrested petitioner and his relatives and kept petitioner and his relatives in police station for some time on that day. He had approached the Human Rights Commission also. Necessary inquiry was made and report was submitted by the Superintendent of Police Nanded to the Human Rights Commission. He has mentioned that there were sufficient grounds for arrest of the petitioner and his relatives and there was no illegality or irregularity and there was no harassment of the petitioner or his relatives when the arrest was made. Thus inquiry was made and the superior officers found that there was no irregularity or illegally. 8. In the present proceeding learned counsel of the petitioner made submission on the basis of provision of section 41 of the Cr.P.C. and some observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (cited supra). After the decision of the Arnesh Kumar (cited supra), the matter was considered again by the Apex Court in the case reported as Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. v. Union of India, 2018 DGLS (SC) 894 . Some directions given in the past came to be withdrawn. After the decision of the Arnesh Kumar (cited supra), the matter was considered again by the Apex Court in the case reported as Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. v. Union of India, 2018 DGLS (SC) 894 . Some directions given in the past came to be withdrawn. It was however observed that police need to be sensitive when they are making investigation of offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and for that training needs to be given to police. 9. The relevant provision of section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is as under : "41. When police may arrest without warrant.-- (1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person (a) . . . . (b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely :-- (i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence; (ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary-- (a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or (b) for proper investigation of the offence; or (c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or (d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or (e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured; and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing: Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest; . . . . .". 10. . . . .". 10. The aforesaid provision of the Cr.P.C. shows that when there are grounds mentioned in aforesaid provision and there is a satisfaction of the police officer on the grounds, he can make an arrest of the accused. In the present matter, the sentence for the crime punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is imprisonment of 3 years and fne. Under Schedule I to the Cr.P.C. this offence is cognizable and non bailable. The aforesaid provision needs to be looked at from both the angles. When the police officer forms opinion that making such arrest is necessary he is expected to give reasons in writing and in a case where the police officer feels arrest is not necessary, in that case also he is expected to record the reasons. Thus, in every case, police officer is expected to take a decision and find out as to whether the grounds mentioned in the aforesaid provision exist or they do not exist. In the present matter the entire material like various complaints given by the present petitioner against the sisters of the wife who are working in Police Department and the intention behind those complaints need to be kept in mind. Further the contention made by him in divorce proceeding which was fled in the year 2012 also needs to be kept in mind. He did not prosecute the divorce proceeding when he had made allegation in divorce proceeding that wife had committed theft of cash and gold ornaments, the wife had given beating to him and the wife had deserted the children also. In that proceeding also he had made vague allegations against a sister of the wife who was working in Police Department that she was harassing him. The probable intention behind making of such complaints against the wife and her sister who was working in Police Department was to pressurise them and probably he wanted to take divorce but he was not ready to give any amount for maintenance of the wife. He also wanted to see that no complaint is given against him which wife can give for offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In view of all these circumstances and the steps which the husband was taking it can be said that the grounds mentioned in section 41(1)(b)(ii)(a),(c) and (d) were made out. He also wanted to see that no complaint is given against him which wife can give for offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In view of all these circumstances and the steps which the husband was taking it can be said that the grounds mentioned in section 41(1)(b)(ii)(a),(c) and (d) were made out. The police officer who had approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class for seeking permission of arrest had mentioned about his satisfaction though not exhaustively in the application made before the Judicial Magistrate. It appears that when the accused were arrested and they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, the Judicial Magistrate perused only the remand report which was given for magisterial custody. Though the Judicial Magistrate did not obtain bond from the accused persons, when there is arrest, the arrested persons cannot be released without taking bond from them as provided in section 59 of the Cr.P.C. When bail is granted in a non bailable offence as provided in section 437 of the Cr.P.C., the usual conditions mentioned in section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. follow. One of the conditions is that the accused shall not commit offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected. This purpose behind the arrest for offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code needs to be kept in mind in a matter like present one. In view of the facts of the present matter, it cannot be said that the arrest was not necessary. Further the Magistrate also ought to have obtained bond as provided in the aforesaid provision from the accused before giving direction to release them. Even if there is some irregularity, there is non compliance of the provision of section 41, the further provision providing for taking bond cannot be avoided. Provision of section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. comes into picture only when the police officer is satisfied that the arrest of a person is not required under provision of sub-section (1) of section 41 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the procedure given in section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. need not be followed if the police officer effecting arrest is satisfied that the arrest is necessary as provided in section 41(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., already quoted. It can be said that by his conduct the husband has invited everything. It can be said that by his conduct the husband has invited everything. Further he came to this Court very late i.e. in the year 2018 when the order came to be passed by the Magistrate on 18-5-2015 of aforesaid nature. On the grounds of laches also this Court holds that it is not possible for giving any relief to the husband which is claimed in the proceeding. It can be inferred that this proceeding is also fled to pressurize the police as they have registered the crime and there will be hearing of the case which must have been fled by police in the aforesaid F.I.R. This Court holds that if the aforesaid record and the circumstances are considered together, there was no illegality or irregularity in the action of police of making arrest in the crime registered for offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, the petition stands dismissed.