Mr. Rebates

Saturday, January 8, 2011

People facing criminal charges can use RTI

Dec 30, 2010

NEW DELHI: In a judgment of far-reaching consequences, the Central Information Commission(CIC) has held that ongoing criminal proceedings of an RTI applicant cannot be a reason to deny information.

This ruling comes from A N Tiwari, the Central Information Commissioner, while deciding on a case, B Ashoka versus Prasar Bharti, the state-run television channel.

The ruling is also rare, as it has levied maximum penalty of `25,000 against the Central Public Information Officer and also the Deputy Director General of Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore, Mahesh Joshi, for withholding information for more than two years. “The head of the public authority, Director General, Doordarshan Directorate, New Delhi, is directed to ensure that the above recoveries are made from Joshi’s salary bills from January to May 2011”, Tiwari said in his ruling.

However, Joshi is yet comply with orders of CIC Tiwari who had directed him to furnish the information demanded by Ashoka within two weeks. “We are yet to receive the information,” Mohan Ram, a Bangalore-based RTI activist who appeared for Ashoka told Express over the phone.

Holding Joshi responsible for deliberately causing delay in disposing Ashoka’s application between 8 September 2008 and 20 November 2009, Tiwari lashed at the CPIO. “He is liable to be penalised for this long and unconscionable delay.” In his eight-page order on 10 December, Tiwari also ruled that ongoing criminal proceedings should not be factored as a reason for denying information to a RTIapplicant. “The CPIO could well be reminded that appellant’s personal credentials could not be cited as reasons for his entitlement to receive information under the RTI Act. If the appellant was found culpable in a criminal proceeding already initiated against him, he will face consequences, but that could not be the reason for withholding information from him under the RTI Act,” Tiwari noted.

For his part, Mahesh Joshi had reasoned that he was in correspondence with the Central Information Commission whether to give information to Ashoka, who he believed, was an extortionist who was intimidating Joshi’s lower staff. The CIC held that this cannot be cited as the reason for withholding the information within the meaning of the RTI Act.

On 26 November 2009, Joshi informed Ashoka that an information of 9,120 pagea was ready to be provided to him on payment of `18,240, which was worked out as per-page cost of the information to be provided. In less than a month as Ashoka filed a complaint before the bench of CIC headed by Annapurna Dixit, Joshi slapped the applicant with additional payment of `31,920.


DV Survivor Guide

NFHS Discussion: Strategy and facts to remember to fight DV cases

1. What is DV Act?

2005 NO. 43 OF 2005 [13th September, 2005.]

Chapter 1: An Act to provide for more effective protection of the rights of
women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any
kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-sixth Year of the
Republic of India.

2. What relief/orders wife can get under DV ACT

Wife can seek the following relief’s from the concerned court -

a) An order enjoining your abuser from threatening to commit or committing
further acts of domestic violence or violence to any person in whom you may be

b) An order prohibiting your abuser from harassing, annoying, telephoning,
contacting or otherwise communicating with you, directly or indirectly.

c) An order removing your abuser from residence;

d) An order directing your abuser to stay away from your residence, school,
place of employment, or any other specified place frequented by you and
another family or household member;

e) An order prohibiting you abuser from using or possessing any firearm or any
other weapon or dangerous substance as specified by the court.

f) An order granting you possession of your personal effects and other necessary
articles in the shared household and an order to put you again in the possession
of the shared household;

g) An order granting you custody of your child or children;

h) An order denying your abuser visitation;

i) An order specifying arrangements for visitation, including requiring supervise

j) An order for interim monetary relief, including but not limited to payment of
rent for the premises of the shared household, maintenance for you and your
children, medical expenses and compensation for any other mental or physical
injury caused to you by the abuser;

3. NFHS did study and RTI inspection of some of the magistrate orders. Our
conclusion is magistrates’ are basically finding reason’s to hold husband guilty
so that they can pass maintenance. Unless the husband is held guilty no order of
relief can be passed against him. In one such order NFHS has found that the
reason given by magistrate is “I find husband guilty of DV based on arguments,
wife has produced a medical certificate of treatment and 498A is registered
against husband.”  He however held that “FIL has not done any DV as a 65
years old person cannot do DV on 28 year old women”. So the important thing
is to demolish all allegation of DV from her petition though it is very difficult to
do so.

4. The main attraction for girls is to claim the Right to Residence (RTR) from
Husband/Male partner. So make sure you do not own a house or flat in your
name. Even though wife/female partner can claim RTR only against
Husband/Male partner but nothing stops the wife/female partner from filing a
petition under DV act and come and sit inside the house.

5. Another important point is wife/female partner can claim maintenance under
the DV act. This is in addition to other maintenance ordered under CrPC 125 or
HMA section 24. So in case your wife is granted maintenance under CrPC 125
or HMA section 24, then your lawyer has to forcefully argue to the court that
basic need of the wife is taken care by other maintenance and hence there is no
need of any additional maintenance.

6. Please note DV act cannot be filed against a female but if you are a victim of
the DV act then make sure your mother files a DV case against your father-inlaw/brother-in-law. This is a strategy which may not succeed but from the point
of view of keeping pressure it is good.

7. Your wife/female partner can be provided with protection order from local
SHO. So you should be in good relation with your local SHO else your
wife/female partner can create enough trouble for you. E.g. she can simply walk
to the SHO and file a complaint that you were following her or that you had
threatened her in the court to withdraw cases etc.

8. Please remember that from various judgments of the various high courts,
there is no clarity whether DV act is retrospective or not. Various HC’s have
given contradictory judgments in this regard. Retrospective means even though
DV act came into existence only in September 2006 but a husband/male partner
can be booked for incidents which had occurred before DV act came into
existence. But your lawyer must take this stand. The problem is even if the
opposite party is able to show one incident after separation even then you can be

9. Even though there is no mention of arrest in DV act but non-compliance of
order by magistrate can lead to issuance of non-bailable-warrant. DV is neither
purely civil nor criminal. There is a beautiful judgment in this regard from
Chhattisgarh HC.

10. There was a case booked in Madya-Pradesh where even though divorce was
granted in 2003 but wife restored to DV act in 2007 and that subsequently lead
to non-bailable-warrant.

11. The basic difference between 498a and DV act is in 498a husband is liable
for punishment but wife does not get any financial relief but in DV wife/female
partner gets lots of relief but there is no punishment/arrest (unless husband
violate court order). Another difference is 498a can be booked against husband
or his relatives but DV can be booked only against male members of a family.

12. Another point to remember is that as per Supreme Court judgment in batra
vs batra any relief to the wife cannot be granted to wife against the property of
mother-in law. So it may be wise to transfer the immovable property to
mother’s name but again as per Chennai HC order where husband transferred
the property to wife but she captured it and HC termed it correct. So you must
be very careful in this.

13. Please remember that under DV act Magistrate is having sweeping powers.
So make sure not to keep much cash in the known bank accounts.

14. There is a recent Chennai high court judgment where even though the
husband has transferred the property to the mothers name but high court did not
like this and they passed the RTR in favor of wife. So I guess the safest way out
is to sell the property and park the funds in investments which wife cannot track

15. The key to win DV case is demolish her evidence of violence. Normally the
girls’ side will project that 498A is filed and hence violence has happened. The
problem is 498A takes around 5-7 years to finish and DV runs very fast. So in
the cross examination of wife all her allegations must be demolished wrt the

16. Behavior in the court and how the judge observes you is very important in
such cases as evidence in matrimonial cases always does not tell truth.

17. Try to give as many evidence as possible to build your cases. Even if lower
court ignores your evidence then also you will have a chance in HC to argue.
Remember getting a favorable order from lower court is very important as in
HC mostly it is your luck.

18. Though your lawyer will discourage you from filing a lengthy affidavit but
you need to make sure that her cruelty part is highlighted properly. Normally
lawyers will suggest that don’t bring the cruelty as it is more relevant to the
divorce case but that is not true. You need to bring every aspect of her cruelty as
it will prove that you are the one who had undergone DV.

19. Attack DV in your affidavit saying the law is made on flaw and is against
the principle of natural justice and against constitution of India article 15 which
guarantees equality to each citizen. Though it will not help you directly but will
convey the message to the judge that you might have undergone DV at the
hands of your wife.

20. In your affidavit at the end you must put a paragraph mentioning how
greedy women are misusing the laws made for the needy women. This will help
creating awareness and help the larger cause.

21. Remember your lawyer will say just keep on denying all the allegations and
finish the affidavit. That is wrong strategy. You cannot escape just by denying
allegations. You need to bring out your story in proper way and convey to the
magistrate that you are the one who had suffered at the hands of your cruel wife.

22. Remember your greedy wife is behind your money. She is least interested in
saving the marriage or you. When she has filed a false case of DV against you
means for all practical purpose marriage is dead. So you need to safeguard your
finance part. There are innumerable judgments where it is ordered that
educated; working women are not capable for maintenance.

23. Now the question is once your wife captures your house then how do you
vacate her as she had captured just to harass you? She may not be even staying

24. Use 91 CrPC applications effectively to bring out true facts.

25. Use 340 CrPC applications to put them on the back foot as it deals with
punishment for lying on oath.

26. Use RTI effectively to collect evidence.

27. Use TEP, DP3 etc effectively to push them to wall and to give them their
own taste.

28. Talk to volunteers and attend weekly meeting regularly.

29. Never file an application in the court without reading the entire contents
twice. Normally I never allow my lawyer to file application. I do all the paper
work myself and enjoy it.

30. Remember there only two important things to decide DV Case. One is
domestic relationship and another is domestic violence. In most of our cases
domestic relationship is not disputed so only other thing to be decided is
domestic violence.

31. You need to understand how the Magistrate/Session court decides the matter
and how the HC/SC decides the matter.

32. Should you delay and drag the case or finish it as fast as possible.

33. Why it is dangerous
It is dangerous because it is retrospective in nature. i.e. even if any alleged
domestic violence has occurred even before the implementation of this act even
then this act can be used. It gives sweeping Ex-Parte relief to women even
without ascertaining whether any kind of domestic violence has taken place.
The wordings of the DV act are not very “happily worded” (observed by
Honorable Supreme Court). So it is bound to be misused by ladies to take
revenge. Magistrate can pass Ex-Parte order.

34. Use following page to get judgments related to DV:

35. Use following page to get misuse judgments related to DV:

36. Use following page to get strategy related to DV:

37. Use following page to get FAQ related to DV:

• Remember it is not about to know DV Act but rather to fight it.

• Also point of discussion will be “How to get the house captured by DIL”?

• How to reduce maintenance?

• What is relevant to decide a DV Case?

• Strategy to Cross opposite party in DV Case.

• What constitutes Evidence in a DV Case?

• How to write Chief Affidavit?

Source: http://498amisuse. wordpress. com/2011/ 01/05/dv- survivor- guide/

Friday, January 7, 2011

Domestic Violence- Women are Half the Problem

If you want to argue research, go here first:
Fiebert's Studies
NIJ/CDC report

A link for the fembot

(Video) My Experience with the modern woman

Modern Women are intoxicated with feminism

How Feminism Screwed my Generation

The family has been abolished, and so has the dating scene for people in their 20s

A debate on how exactly feminism sees the world.

On Feminism

(Video) Feminism explained

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

N.B. case fuels debate over domestic violence

Jan 3, 2011

After a night of drunken revelry that escalated into a violent street fight, Crystal-Dawn MacKenzie grabbed a knife from her neighbour's kitchen, yelled "I'm going to kill him" and stabbed her common-law husband in the collarbone.
If the knife had moved just a centimetre in either direction, Patrick Andrew Thomas likely would have lived, a pathologist later testified. But the 29-year-old bled to death on a downtown Saint John street.
Eight months later, Ms. MacKenzie walked out of a New Brunswick court a free woman after a nine-woman, three-man jury in Saint John acquitted the 28-year-old mother of three of second-degree murder, accepting that she had finally snapped after years of abuse at the hands of Mr. Thomas.
The Crown filed an appeal last week, a rare move for a jury trial. Prosecutors are arguing that the judge erred in his definitions of murder and self-defence and that Ms. MacKenzie had alternatives to killing her husband to escape his violence.
"Of course she had other options," said her lawyer, David Kelly. "But she had been drinking and that impaired her judgement."
The case has riveted the community and polarized opinions about just how far a battered woman can go to defend herself, an argument that has raged since a landmark 1990 Supreme Court of Canada ruling found women could use a history of abuse to defend themselves from murder charges.
People were surprised that Ms. MacKenzie didn't face any consequences for killing her partner, such as family violence counselling or community service, said Nancy Porter, executive director of Coverdale Centre for Women, a women's shelter that neighbours Ms. MacKenzie's apartment.
"Has the jury sent the message that if you're in a situation of family violence it's OK to bump off the other half ?" she asked. "I can't imagine the Crown would be on some kind of witch hunt."
Ms. MacKenzie's acquittal has renewed public criticism of the battered women's defence despite overwhelming evidence that women are far more often the targets of domestic homicides than men, said Deborah Doherty, executive director of Public Legal Education and Information Service of New Brunswick. Ms. Doherty has studied 20 years' worth of domestic homicides in the province, which until recently had all been committed by men and many of which were murder-suicides.
"Certainly there seems to be people who wrote comments when she was acquitted that it's just another sign of bias against men in relationships," Ms. Doherty said.
"But in terms of domestic homicides, three out of every four victims are women. Yes, women are killing their partners, but it's much more uncommon. It's much more likely that women are the victims of serious domestic violence."
Ms. MacKenzie's rocky and often violent four-year relationship with Mr. Thomas was played out in detail at trial as the judge asked potential jurors to excuse themselves if they had strong feelings on domestic violence.
A friend testified he once saw Mr. Thomas sitting on Ms. Mackenzie when she was pregnant and punching her in the face. Others told the jury they saw Mr. Thomas bite Ms. MacKenzie, call her names and smash her head into tiles. The jury saw two years of police photos of Ms. MacKenzie bruised and battered and in 2009 Mr. Thomas pleaded guilty to assaulting Ms. MacKenzie. Although he was ordered not to go near her, he breached his probation three times.
Still, a social worker told the court that although she was concerned about the domestic violence complaints, she had never removed the couple's children from the home.
In the early hours of March 15, the couple was coming home from partying at a Saint John bar when Mr. Thomas passed out on the steps of their building. Witnesses said they saw Ms. MacKenzie trying to wake him up by smacking him in the head.
It escalated into an argument and then a physical fight. Ms. MacKenzie grabbed a broom and ran at Mr. Thomas in the street. He put her in a headlock and began to choke her.
When she broke free, neighbours heard her say "I've had enough, I'm going to kill him," before she ran for a kitchen knife.
"I just didn't want him to go in the house because my kids were in there," Ms. MacKenzie testified. "I knew if he went in, that would be the end of me," she said.
It was Ms. MacKenzie's pledge to kill her husband that has left some applauding the Crown's decision to appeal her acquittal.
"They need to say enough is enough — it doesn't matter what gender you are if you commit murder, it should be treated a murder," said Ed Hoyt, founder of the New Brunswick Children's Equal Parenting Association, which held a Christmas Eve protest outside the Saint John family court.
That argument ignores a huge body of research that shows women and men often kill for very different reasons and under very different circumstances in relationships, Ms. Doherty said.
Men often kill their partners in the midst of a breakup, often out of jealousy and control. Women mostly kill within intact relationships, often to protect themselves and their children or because they see no other way out of the abuse.
"If you read all the literature on battered women, they tend not to see the other options," Ms. Doherty said.
"Even if they go to a neighbour, they think he's going to follow them. There's no hope unless they kill him."
Although courts have been doing their best to understand the plight of abused women, the acquittal risks setting a troubling precedent, said Coverdale shelter's Ms. Porter.
"In the world of domestic violence, nothing is right."

Read more: Nationalpost

Female sex tourism: for love or money?

 April 29, 2010 

From Jamaica to Jordan to West Africa, Western women of means find "romance" on vacation.

BOSTON — The arrests this week of 28 "beach boys" in Indonesia — accused by the authorities of selling sex to female tourists — highlights a surging global phenomenon.
GlobalPost correspondents and editors have observed this brand of female sex tourism in many corners of the world, including Jamaica, Jordan, Senegal,Ukraine and elsewhere. There is a growing body of work by film documentarians and authors chronicling what appears to be a thriving subculture. At resorts, beach communities and tourist attractions from Egypt to Indonesia,  women with disposable incomes are negotiating with local men who are in the business of offering the service of convenient coupling for female tourists on holiday.
The recent arrests, on the island of Bali, coincided with the release of a documentary on the resort's "gigolos." The film, "Cowboys in Paradise" — which contains candid interviews with local men and the foreign women who fall for them — had gone viral on the internet but has since been removed from the official website by its makers. Here's a YouTube trailer
It's by no means the first attempt to describe a phenomenon that, according to Jeannette Belliveau, author of a book exploring the subject — "Romance on the Road" — is "going on everywhere from Fiji to Peru, well outside of the Caribbean and Africa and southern Europe."
GlobalPost correspondents Tom A. Peter in Jordan and Anne Look in Senegal report that business for the local men — and in many instances boys — who seek out foreign women, usually on vacation, has never been better.  
Peter, based in Amman, traveled to Jordan's south, where many foreign women — particularly Europeans — test the definition of tourism by becoming sexually, even romantically, involved with local guides and other tourism industry workers.
Look, meantime, found the beaches of Senegal to be rich pickings for European women "of a certain age" who proposition young men, invariably trapped in a cycle of relentless poverty, for sex in exchange for "gifts" like electronics and often cold, hard cash. Many of these women claim they're just doing what middle-aged men have been doing for centuries: taking up with someone half their age and giving them an all-expenses-paid ride in exchange for sex.
Female sex tourism, though certainly less pronounced than the male equivalent — and arguably more taboo — has provoked ongoing debate as the subject of writers, filmmakers and researchers for decades.
J. Michael Seyfert in his recent cult hit film "Rent-a-Rasta," follows the lives of Jamaican men who offer their "services," be it companionship or sex, to foreign women in exchange for money, gifts or even the promise of a better future abroad. The 2006 film's opening even quotes a popular 1980s American movie, "How Stella Got her Groove Back": "Sex tourism, a product of slavery, is not new to the Caribbean. Every year, over 80,000 middle-aged women flock to Jamaica to get their groove back."
The 2006 film "Heading South," focuses on a group of middle-aged American and European women who visit dirt-poor Haiti in the late 1970s and link up with local boys (few are out of their teens) eager to provide sex to middle-aged female guests who lavish them with money and gifts. In the film, the 55-year-old American "Ellen" speaks matter-of-factly about the practice: "I always told myself that when I'm old I'd pay young men to love me."

The reasons Western women travel and engage in liaisons, brief or otherwise, with local men are also the subject of non-fiction. In "Romance on the Road," Baltimore native Belliveau pulls together an impressive array of statistics and writes of her own and other women's experiences as single travelers. 
"I look in my book ... at how conquering soldiers through time have taken local women as part of the spoils of that clash of encounters. Today, the conquering hero is the Western woman who has a good job as a nurse or professional or writer or whatever. And she can have her pick of men," she said. "The transaction isn’t just simple money for sex at all. I’m 1,000 percent sure none of the women I talked to [for her book] paid for anything. "Their story was: 'I made love with a Fijian guy in the surf in Maui.'" 
Laughing, she continues: "It was always in water. Another was in a bathtub with a Maori in New Zealand. A third one was in the Red Sea in Egypt.
"And it was all very much heat of the moment. It wasn’t, 'I’m going to the Dominica Republic to pay Pablo the going rate.'"

Woman, paramour murder her husband

Jan 1, 2011

New Delhi,  A woman and her paramour were arrested in west Delhi for allegedly murdering her husband on the Christmas night, police said today.
The arrested have been identified as Shobha and Sunil Mallick. They allegedly stranged Shobha''s husband Shiv Nath, a businessman on December 25.
"Shobha told the police she was in love with Mallick before her marriage.
However, due to her parents pressure she agreed to get marry Nath. They were not on good terms with each other and she revived her relationship with Mallick.
"Due to social pressure, she did not want to seek a divorce. At the same time, she did not want to continue to live with her husband. She, along with Mallick, made a plan to kill her husband. As per the plan, they killed her husband by using the pillow," a senior police official said.
Initially, there were no suspicion on the death of Nath as he was a heart patient. However, police persuaded the family to go for the post mortem.
"On December 30, we received the report and autopsy surgeon opined that cause of death is asphyxia consequent to obstruction of airways by combined effect of manual strangulation of neck and smothering. All injuries are ante mortem and fresh in nature.
"The injuries inside the neck are sufficient to cause to death in ordinary course of nature. Following this, a case of murder was registered," the official said.
Source: Yahoo India


Jan 4, 2011

CrPC Amendment 2010 i.e. Act 41 of 2010, has come into force by Notification No SO 2689(E) dated 1.11.2010 and comes into force from 02.11.2010.

further to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973.
Bill No. 29 of 2010
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-first Year of the Republic of India as follows:—
1. (1) This Act may be called the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2010.[Short title and commencement.]
(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.[Amendment of section 41.]
[5 of 2009.]
[2 of 1974.]2. On and from the date of commencement of section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, in section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [as amended by section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008], in sub- section (1), in clause (b), the following proviso shall be inserted at the end, namely:—
“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.”.
[Amendment of section 41A.]
3. On and from the date of commencement of section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, in section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [as inserted by section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008],—
[5 of 2009.]
[2 of 1974.]
(a) in sub-section (1), for the words “The police officer may”, the words “The police officer shall” shall be substituted;
(b) for sub-section (4), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:— “(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the
notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such
orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.”.
In the light of objections from certain quarters to certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, the said Act could not be brought into force. These provisions, inter alia, relate to the power of the police to arrest without warrant. A reference in the matter was made to the Law Commission of India to take the initiative to bring about a consensus on the issues. The Law Commission discussed the issues with all concerned including the Chairperson(s) of some of the Bar Councils and the Chairman of the Bar Council of India. After holding consultations, the Law Commission recommended further amendment in the provisions of amended section 41 of the aforesaid Act to make it compulsory for the police to record the reasons for making an arrest as well for not making an arrest in respect of a cognizable offence for which the maximum punishment is up to seven years. The Law Commission also suggested further changes in the newly inserted section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 (inserted by Act 5 of 2009) to make it compulsory for the police to issue a notice in all such cases where arrest is not required to be made under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of the amended section 41. It was also suggested that the unwillingness of a person who has not been arrested to identify himself and to whom a notice has been issued under the aforesaid section 41A could be a ground for his arrest. It has been decided to accept the suggestions of the Law Commission of India and to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 as amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008.
2. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives.
The 2nd March, 2010.
[When police may arrest without warant.]
(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person—
(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.
[Notice of appearance before police officer.]
41A. (1) The police officer may, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person 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, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.
* * * * * (4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice, it shall
be lawful for the police officer to arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice, subject
to such orders as may have been passed in this behalf by a competent Court.
further to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973.

(Shri P. Chidambaram, Minister of Home Affairs)
Read CRPC Amendment 2008 here