Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika v. State of Jharkhand - CrPC - Complaint Case- Police Power To Arrest
Police has no power to arrest the accused in a complaint case unless there is a non bailable warrant issued by that Court along with the summons.
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 438- Police has no power to arrest the accused in a complaint case unless there is a non bailable warrant issued by that Court along with the summons. Once the Court takes cognizance and issues summons, all that the accused has to do is to appear before that Court and join the proceedings. Why should the accused go before the Sessions Court or the High Court, as the case may be, and pray for anticipatory bail? [Context: Jharkhand High Court order refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a private complaint case - SC observed: If the Court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may do so but the Court has no jurisdiction to say that the petitioner should now surrender.](Para 10-13)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 202 - Wherein on a private complaint, the magistrate deems fit to take cognizance under Section 200 of the Cr.PC. but postpones the issue of process till the conclusion of the magisterial inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. If a magistrate orders a Police inquiry under Section 202 and asks the police to give a report, then whether in the course of such inquiry, the police can arrest the accused. The answer is an emphatic “NO”, Police has no powers to arrest even during the course of the inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.PC. (Para 11)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 87 - Section 87 empowers the Court to issue warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons. However, this power has to be exercised only in two contingencies as explained by the provision itself, i.e, (a) and (b), referred to above, respectively.
Case Info
Basic Case Details
Case name:Om Prakash Chhawnika @ Om Prakash Chabnika @ Om Prakash Chawnika v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Neutral citation:Not mentioned in the text provided. The order only shows: SLP (Crl.) No. 16221/2025.
Court and Coram:Supreme Court of IndiaCoram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judgment/order date:23 April 2026
Case Laws and Citations Referred
- Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2021 (10) SCC 773
This Supreme Court decision is cited in the High Court’s earlier order dated 13.03.2023, which directed the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail in accordance with the guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil.
Statutes / Provisions Referred
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Section 323
- Section 420
- Section 467
- Section 468
- Section 471
- Section 120B read with Section 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Section 87 – Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons (quoted in full and interpreted)
- Section 200 – Cognizance of offence on complaint
- Section 202 – Postponement of issue of process; inquiry/investigation (including reference to a police inquiry under this section)
Brief 3‑Sentence Summary
This Special Leave Petition challenged a Jharkhand High Court order refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a private complaint case involving alleged offences under Sections 323, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B/34 IPC arising out of a land dispute. The Supreme Court held that in private complaint cases the police have no power to arrest unless a non‑bailable warrant is issued by the Magistrate, explained the limited contingencies under Section 87 CrPC for issuing warrants, and criticized the practice in Bihar and Jharkhand of entertaining and rejecting anticipatory bail in such situations. The Court further held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to “surrender and seek regular bail,” noted that the trial is already in progress, disposed of the SLP, and directed that its order be circulated to the High Courts of Bihar and Jharkhand and that State counsel guide the State accordingly.