The Supreme Court observed that summoning and detaining a person without there being any crime registered against him would be violative of basic principles.

The directions issued in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, would be applicable even if no crime was registered, the bench observed.

In this case, a man approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking a direction not to arrest him without giving due notice under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure. His wife had filed a complaint alleging offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The single Judge thus directed the police to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar.

Later, he filed a Contempt Case alleging that in spite of the order passed by the High Court, he was forcibly taken away by the police officer to Akividu police station and detained him there.

The single bench took note of the enquiry report filed bu Metropolitan Sessions Judge in this matter which stated that the petitioner was not only summoned to Akividu Police Station in the name of counseling but was also detained. The bench thus held that the police officer is guilty of contempt of court. He was sentenced to suffer three months imprisonment.

Setting aside this order, the Division bench observed that since no crime was registered, the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar would not come into play. "But in the instant case, no crime was registered till date. When there is no crime, the question of arresting the writ petitioners would not arise.", the Division bench observed.

The Apex Court bench, taking note of the enquiry report, observed that there was clear violation of the directions issued by this Court not only in Arnesh Kumar but also in the case in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

"The mere fact that no crime was registered, could not be a defence, nor would it be an escape from the rigour of the decisions rendered by this Court. As a matter of fact, summoning the person without there being any crime registered against him and detaining him would itself be violative of basic principles", the court observed.

Restoring the single bench order, the Court modified the substantive sentence of three months to 15 days.