INSIGHT OF 498A IPC

In the year 2004 to 2005, we have noticed that dowry laws, particularly section 498a IPC was misused at large scale to settle one's personal score and gain monetary benefit under the grab of 498a IPC which is non bailable and cognizable offence. Meaning thereby as soon as FIR’s get registered under section 498a IPC, the person’s name in the FIR is liable to be arrested without any pre-inquiry about the allegations. We have also seen in so many cases that not only the husband and his parents were named in the FIR but also distant relative like married sister, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and other relatives who were not directly indulged in the day-to-day affairs of the couple were also roped in the FIR just to put pressure on the husband family so that they may come under pressure and in that juncture, the greedy compliment may grab much monetary benefit. In other words, the 498a was misused just to grab money and property and due to ineffective investigation and complete failure of law enforcement agencies, this type of FIR under section 498a was mushrooming and nursing the greedy people. During this relevant time, we met so many harassed husbands and their family who are being implicated in false 498a cases and after personal interview and interaction with them, we also found concrete base and shreds of evidence which clearly speaks that they were being targeted and implicated just to fulfill illegal demand of the greedy complainant. Being a law-abiding citizen and having legal and constitutional awareness we have decided to protect them as such we have started free legal advice to the needy and falsely implicated persons. Thereafter few NGOs also came forward to work in this area in order to stop the misuse of law and we fully cooperated with them as and when the need arises. During this period we handled so many cases of 498a, maintenance case, domestic violence case, and other matrimonial cases arising out of matrimonial disputes from trial court up to the Supreme Court, and by the grace of God, we have successfully defended them and protected them from arrest and humiliation. Later on when the 498a IPC and its misuse became a daily routine and not only the affected person and lawyers noticed its misuse but also the judicial system also noticed its misuse as such judicial forums started passing some excellent judgment which was in benefit of the person who has been falsely implicated in the 498a cases.

 OBSERVATIONS OF COURTS THROUGH JUDGMENTS:-

In the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand decided in 2010, the Supreme Court observed that a serious relook of the provision is warranted by the Legislature. The Court said: “It is a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incidents are reflected in a large number of complaints”. The Court took note of the common tendency to implicate husband and all his immediate relations. The Supreme Court directed the Registry to send a copy of judgment to the Law Commission and Union Law Secretary so that appropriate steps may be taken in the larger interests of society. In an earlier case also - Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. UOI2 (2005), the Supreme Court lamented that in many instances, complaints under s.498A were being filed with an oblique motive to wreck personal vendetta and observed. “It may therefore become necessary for the Legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with”. It was also observed that “by misuse of the provision, a new legal terrorism can be unleashed”. Various High Courts in the country have also noted that in several instances, omnibus allegations are made against the husband and his relations and the complaints are filed without proper justification. The need to exercise caution in the case of arrest of the husband and his relatives has been stressed while observing that by such a step, the possibility of reconciliation becomes remote and problematic. In some of the cases, directions were given by the High Courts for regulating the power of arrest and for taking necessary steps to initiate conciliatory effort at the earliest point of time.  Delhi High Court in Chandrabhan  Vs. State (order dated 4.8.2008 in Bail application No.1627/2008) and of the Madras High Court in the case of Tr. Ramaiah Vs. State (order dated 7.7.2008 and 4.8.2008 in MP No.1 of 2008 in Crl. O.P. No.10896 of 2008). In the former case, it was observed that “there is no iota of doubt that most of the complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trifling fights and ego clashes. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in their tussle and ongoing hostility, the hapless children are the worst victims”. The following directions were given to the police authorities: i) “FIR should not be registered in a routine manner. ii) Endeavour of the police should be to scrutinize complaints carefully and then register FIR. iii) No case under section 498-A/406 IPC should be registered without the prior approval of DCP/Addl. DCP. iv) Before the registration of FIR, all possible efforts should be made for reconciliation and in case it is found that there is no possibility of 5 settlement, then, necessary steps should, in the first instance, be taken to ensure return of sthridhan and dowry articles to the complainant. v) Arrest of main accused be made only after thorough investigation has been conducted and with the prior approval of the ACP/DCP. vi)  In the case of collateral accused such as in-laws, prior approval of DCP should be there on the file.” The other directions given were :- The Delhi Legal Services Authority, National Commission for Women, NGOs and social workers working for upliftment of women should set up a desk in Crime Against Women Cell to provide them with conciliation services, so that before the State machinery is set in motion, the matter is amicably settled at that very stage. The need to explore the possibility of reunion and conciliation when the case reaches the Court was also stressed. In conclusion, it was observed that in these matters, the parties themselves can adopt a conciliatory approach without intervention of any outside agency.  In an earlier judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of “Court on its own in Motion vs. CBI”, reported in 109 (2003) Delhi Law Times 494, similar directions were issued to the police and courts regarding arrest, grant of bail, conciliation etc. It appears that these procedural directions issued by the High Court are being followed in Delhi as stated by senior police officers of Delhi, though according to the version of some lawyers, there are many instances of violation at the police station level. It is to be mentioned that after the order in Chander Bhan’s case, (supra), the Commissioner of Police of Delhi issued 6 Standing Order No.330 of 2008 compiling the “Guidelines for Arrest” as laid down by the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court. The judgments relevant to Section 498-A  and the directions issued therein were referred to in the Standing Order. It is learnt that the practice of obtaining the permission of ACP/DCP level officers before effecting arrest of husband/relatives is being followed in Delhi. In many States, according to information received by the Chairman of this Commission, there are no systemic guidelines and there is no regular monitoring of this type of cases by the higher officials. Ad-hoc practices and procedures are in vogue. The directives given by the Madras High Court in the case of TR Ramiah are as follows: i) Except in cases of dowry death/suicide and offences of serious nature, the Station House Officers of the All Women Police Stations are to register F.I.R. only on approval of the Dowry Prohibition Officer concerned. ii) Social workers/mediators with experience may be nominated and housed in the same premises of All Women Police Stations along with Dowry Prohibition Officers. iii) Arrest in matrimonial disputes, in particular arrest of aged, infirm, sick persons and minors, shall not be made by the Station House Officers of the All Women Police Stations. iv) If arrest is necessary during investigation, sanction must be obtained from the Superintendent of Police concerned by forwarding the reasons recorded in writing. v) Arrest can be made after filing of the final report before the Magistrate concerned if there is non-cooperation and absconding of accused persons, and after receipt of appropriate order (Non-Bailable Warrant). vi) Charge sheet must be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of registration of the F.I.R. and in case of failure; extension of time shall be sought for from the jurisdiction Magistrate indicating the reasons for the failure. vii) No weapon including lathis/physical force be used while handling cases at the All Women Police Stations. 7 viii) Complainants/victims should be provided with adequate security/accommodation at Government Home and interest of the children must be taken care of. ix) Stridhan properties/movables and immovable to be restored at the earliest to the victims/complainants and legal aid may be arranged for them through Legal Services Authority for immediate Redressal of their grievances.”  Pursuant to this order, the Director-General of Police, Tamil Nadu, issued a circular to the effect that the said orders of the Court should be strictly followed. In the further order dated 4.8.2008, the Court observed that when the I.O. seeks remand of the accused, the Magistrate must examine the necessity therefore and the remand should not be ordered mechanically on the mere request of the I.O. The Magistrate should be satisfied that sufficient grounds exist for directing remand. Further, the Court deprecated the practice of conducting lengthy panchayats in police stations. As regards the decisions of Delhi and Madras High Courts referred to above, there are a few comments which we consider appropriate to make. The decisions make the offence practically bailable by reason of various qualifications and restrictions prescribed. The decision of Madras High court goes to the extent of saying that arrest can be made only after filing of the final report before the Magistrate and on the basis of non-bailable warrant issued by the Magistrate. Whether this judicial law-making based on experience and expediency of restraining the power of arrest in matters arising out of matrimonial problems, is legally sound is one question that arises. Secondly, whether the registration of FIR can be deferred for sometime i.e., till initial investigation and reconciliation process is completed, is another point that  arises. In Bhajan Lal’s case, the Supreme Court observed, “It is therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information.”  However, in a recent case of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the question whether a police officer is bound to register the FIR when a cognizable offence is made out or he has the discretion to conduct some kind of preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR, has been referred to a larger bench of Supreme Court in view of the apparent divergence in views. The law on this point is therefore in an uncertain state. In this situation, the police in various States have to follow the law laid down or directives issued by the respective High Courts in regard to registration of FIR till the law is settled by the Supreme Court.

 DATA REGARDING 498-A  :-The complaint of over-implication noticed by the Courts is borne out by the statistical data of the cases under Sec.498A. According to information’s received from the Hon’ble High Courts (during the year 2011), 3,40,555 cases under Section 498-A IPC were pending trial in various courts towards the end of 2010. There were as many as 9,38,809 accused implicated in these cases. This does not include cases pertaining to Punjab and Haryana (statistics not available). The implication of the relatives of husband was found to be unjustified in a large number of decided cases. While so, it appears that the women especially from the poor strata of the society living in rural areas rarely take resort to the provision, though they are the worst sufferers. However, according to Delhi Police officials, women from poor background living in slums are also coming forward to file complaints.  According to the statistics published by National Crime Records Bureau for the year 2011, about 3,39,902 cases under Sec.498A were pending trial in various courts at the end of the year and 29,669 cases under S,304-B of IPC. The conviction rate in Sec.498A cases is 21.2% and in Sec.304-B cases, it is 35.8%. Number of cases reported under Sec.498A in the year 2011 are 99,135 and during the two previous years, they were 94,041 and 89,546. Thus, there is slight increase (about 5%) in the reported cases every year. As stated earlier, many cases go unreported. The statistics relating to reported incidents may not therefore furnish a reliable comparative indicator of the actual incidence of 10 crimes in the States. For instance, when compared to other cities, the percentage share of incidents reported under S, 498-A is the 2nd highest in Delhi. It may be because that the percentage of reporting is apparently high. The dowry-death cases (Sec.304-B) reported during the years 2009-11 are: 8,383, 8,391 and 8,618. There is a view-point that if the offence under Sec.498A is made bailable or non-cognizable, it will cease to be a deterrent against cruelty inflicted on married women and the dowry-deaths may increase.

 CASE UNDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT:-   The   Protection of women from Domestic violence act 2005 was enacted with a view to provide for more effective protection of rights of women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. Those rights are essentially of civil nature with a mix of penal provisions. In other word it is a quasi criminal law. Section 3 of the Act defines domestic violence in very wide terms. It encompasses the situations set out in the definition of ‘cruelty’ under Section 498A. The Act has devised an elaborate machinery to safeguard the interests of women subjected to domestic violence. The Act enjoins the appointment of Protection Officers who will be under the control and supervision of a Judicial Magistrate of First Class. The said officer shall send a domestic incident report to the Magistrate, the police station and service providers. The Protection Officers are required to effectively assist and guide the complainant victim and provide shelter, medical facilities, legal aid etc. and also act on her behalf to present an application to the Magistrate for one or more reliefs under the Act. The Magistrate is required to hear the application ordinarily within 3 days from the date of its receipt. The Magistrate may at any stage of the proceedings direct the respondent and/or the aggrieved person to undergo counseling with 20 a service provider. ‘Service Providers’ are those who conform to the requirements of Section 10 of the Act. The Magistrate can also secure the services of a welfare expert preferably a woman for the purpose of assisting him. Under Section 18, the Magistrate, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Respondent and on being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has taken place or is likely to take place, is empowered to pass a protection order prohibiting the Respondent from committing any act of domestic violence and/or aiding or abetting all acts of domestic violence. There are other powers vested in the Magistrate including granting residence orders and monetary reliefs. Section 23 further empowers the Magistrate to pass such interim order as he deems just and proper including an ex-parte order. The breach of protection order by the respondent is regarded as an offence which is cognizable and non-bailable and punishable with imprisonment extending to one year . By the same Section, the Magistrate is also empowered to frame charges under Section 498A of IPC and/or Dowry Prohibition Act. A Protection Officer who fails or neglects to discharge his duty as per the protection order is liable to be punished with imprisonment . The provisions of the Act are supplemental to the provisions of any other law in force.

POWER OF ARREST IN 498A CASES:-  Power of arrest vested with the Police Officer in a cognizable offence is no doubt a potent weapon to enforce the penal provision. However, this weapon should be sparingly drawn out of its sheath and wielded only if necessary. It shall not be used at the whim and fancy of the I.O. or be treated as a panacea for checking such offences. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. Mechanical, casual and hasty application of the power of arrest is counter-productive and negates the fundamental right enshrined in Art. 21. Such attitude is at the root of misuse of S. 498A. The provisions in Cr.PC regulating and channelizing the power of arrest should act as guiding star to the police and their spirit and purpose should be foremost in their minds. Overreach is as bad as inaction. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest in the context of cases u/s 498-A has been emphasized time and again by the Courts . Similarly, the need to keep the doors for reconciliation open and to restore the family ties if  possible has also been highlighted in many judgments and even in statutory provisions dealing with matrimonial disputes and domestic violence. Arbitrary and indiscriminate arrests are an anathema to the rule of law and values of criminal justice. In the context of Section 498-A complaints, it tends to become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motives. The objective of the provision is not better sub served by viewing arrest as the most effective tool. Arrest pending investigation or thereafter should never be viewed as a well deserved punitive measure and it should be exercised on an objective appraisal of the statutorily laid down conditions and criteria. Needless to say that the power of arrest. Sec. 498-A admits of various degrees of cruelty which can be broadly categorized as less serious and more serious. Uniformity of approach in exercising the power of arrest is bound to result in undue hardship and unintended results. Important observations made in Joginder Kumar’s case: “The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time, the crime rate is also increasing. Of late, this Court has been receiving complaints about violation of human rights because of indiscriminate arrests. Analysis of the provisions relating to arrest and the duty of police .  Provisions relating to arrest in Chapter-V and evolve some guidelines as to how the police is expected to act when a FIR disclosing an offence u/s 498-A is received. 5 AIR 1978 SC 28 13.2 Section 41, Cr. P.C., as recast by Act 5 of 2009, lays down certain conditions and restrictions for arresting a person without an order from the Magistrate and without a warrant. There are three situations dealt with by Section 41. Clause (a) speaks of a person committing a cognizable offence in the presence of a police officer. He can be arrested straight away. We are more concerned with clauses (b) and (ba). Clause (ba) relates to power of arresting a person against whom credible information has been received that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years or with death sentence. Thus, the more serious cognizable offences are within the ambit of clause (ba). The conditions for arrest without warrant as set out in clause (ba) are (i) receipt of credible information of cognizable offence; and (2) on the basis of such information, the police officer ‘has reason to believe’ that the such person has committed the offence. The preceding clause (b) governs cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment for a term extending to seven years . More stringent conditions for arrest have been laid down in Cl.(b). A reasonable complaint’ or ‘a credible information’ or ‘a reasonable suspicion’ that a person has committed a cognizable offence triggers the application of this part of section 41. In such a case, the power of arrest is subject to two conditions which operate cumulatively. First the police officer should have ‘reason to believe’ on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that a person has committed the offence. Apart from the condition of formation of reasonable 6 The punishment prescribed by Sec.498A is imprisonment extending to three years and fine.  On the basis of the complaint or information, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or more of the purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (ii) of section 41(1)(b). For ready reference, the said sub-clause (ii) is extracted hereunder:- (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. These conditions are in the nature of mandatory prescriptions to be followed by the police officer before resorting to the drastic power of arrest. The conditions in other clauses of Section 41 are not relevant for our purpose and hence not discussed. 13.3 When a suspect is arrested and produced before a Magistrate for extension of police custody, the Magistrate has to address the question whether specific reasons have been recorded for arresting the person and if so, prima facie, those reasons are relevant and secondly a reasonable conclusion could at all be reached by the police officer that one or the other conditions stated above are attracted. To this limited extent, there could be judicial scrutiny at that stage. If this scrutiny is there, the wrong committed by the police officer  intentionally or unwittingly, could be reversed at the earliest. In Section 498-A cases, it is not too easy to reach the satisfaction that one or more of the clauses in Section 41 are attracted. What could be achieved by custodial interrogation could very well be achieved by interrogating the accused in the course of initial or preliminary investigation. The husband and other male relations can be called upon to appear before the I.O. on the specified date as laid down in Section 41-A. The I.O. cannot proceed on the assumption straightaway that arrest is the best way to extract truth, especially in matrimonial offences. He must always bear in mind that arrest is not the rule and it should be resorted to only on the satisfaction of the conditions statutorily prescribed. There are reports that many arrests in Sec. 498-A cases are made by police on extraneous considerations or without proper application of mind. At the same time, there are also reports that the complaints under section 498-A do not receive serious attention of police and the victim is always viewed with suspicion. Such police inaction too has to be disapproved. The Explanation to Section 498-A which defines cruelty is in two parts. Clause (a) of the Explanation deals with aggravated forms of cruelty which cause grave injury. Firstly, wilful conduct of such a grave nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide falls within the ambit of clause (a). The second limb of clause (a) lays down that willful conduct which causes grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman is to be regarded as ‘cruelty’. Dowry related harassment is within clause (b) of the Explanation. When the FIR coupled with the statement of the 31 victim woman discloses cruelty of grave nature falling within clause (a), the police officer has to act swiftly and promptly especially if there is evidence of physical violence. In the first instance, proper medical aid and the assistance of counselors shall be provided to the aggrieved woman and the process of investigation should start without any loss of time. The need for arresting the husband may be more demanding in such a situation in a case of cruelty falling under clause (b). We are adverting to this fact in order to make it clear that our observations earlier do not mean that under no circumstances, the power of arrest shall be initially resorted to or that the I.O. should invariably postpone the arrest/custodial interrogation till the reconciliation process comes to close. We would like to stress that the discretion has to be exercised reasonably having due regard to the facts of each case. Of course, the conditions subject to which the power of arrest has to be exercised should always guide the discretion to be exercised by the police officer. While no hard and fast rule as to the exercise of power of arrest can be laid down, we would like to point out that a balanced and sensitive approach should inform the decision of the I.O. and he shall not be too anxious to exercise that power. There must be good and substantial reasons for arriving at the satisfaction that imminent arrest is necessary having regard to the requirements of clause (ii) of Section 41(1)(b) of Cr. P.C. In this context, the Commission would like to stress that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in the said clause for effecting arrest should be discouraged and discontinued. The Head of Police department should issue 32 necessary instructions in this regard which will serve as a safeguard against arbitrary arrests in Sec.498-A cases.  The investigating officers should remind themselves of the pertinent observations made by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.After referring to the 3rd report of National Police Commission, the Supreme Court placed the law of arrest in a proper perspective by holding: “The above guidelines are merely the incidents of personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India. No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do. Then, there is the right to have someone informed. That right of the arrested person, upon request, to have someone informed and to consult privately with a lawyer was recognized by Section 56(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. In Siddaram Satlingappa vs. State of Maharashtra, it was observed “The arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case”. Certain guidelines / prescriptions to mitigate misuse 14.1 Certain Dos and Don’ts to the police personnel by the Head of the police dept. in order to inculcate the sense of responsibility and sensitivity is the need of the hour. The abuse of the provision by resorting to the power of arrest indiscriminately should be checked at all cost. The following prescriptions/guidelines shall be kept in view by the I.Os and be incorporated in the Circular to be issued by the Head of Police Department. The FIR has to be registered as per law if it discloses an offence and the Police Officer has reason to suspect the commission of offence . However, on the point of registration of FIR, the police officials have to necessarily follow the decisions/directives of High Court on the point. On receiving the FIR, the police officer should cross-check with the complainant the correctness of the contents and whether she voluntarily made all the allegations. For this purpose, she may be interviewed/ questioned preferably in the presence of a lady official or a respectable lady or a Counselor  Then, without delay, the police officer must initiate the process of initial investigation by visiting the house of the husband and have a first hand account of the version of husband and other relations and take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that the accused do not indulge in acts ,calculated to endanger the safety and liberty of the complainant. Both sides should be counseled not to precipitate the situation. Thereafter, steps should be taken to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre if any or District Legal aid Centre or a team of Counselors/conciliators if any attached to the Police District. In the absence of professional counselors, the SP of the District or the DCP can form a team or panel of mediators/counselors. It may consist of IAS or other Civil Service Officers (preferably lady officers) and lady IPS Officers (unconnected to the case) or respected members of media, legal or other professions. If the parties choose to have specified persons as mediators/conciliators, they must be referred to such persons. The police may obtain the report of mediators or conciliators within a maximum period of thirty days and then, depending on the outcome, they may proceed further in the matter. If the situation demands, investigation shall be completed and at that stage, if custodial interrogation is found necessary for the relevant reasons to be recorded in writing, the husband and others can be arrested on taking the permission of DCP/SP level officer. Then I.O. shall also take such action as is necessary to restore the valuable belongings of the complainant woman. These rules or guidelines if followed would prevent misuse while fostering a valued based approach.  In the case of Non-Resident Indians, it is reported that the passports are seized when they come to India at the stage of investigation or they are sent to the Passport Officer for passing an order of impounding. During the pendency  of the case in the Court, the prosecutor often requests the Court to direct depositing of the passport as a condition for granting bail. This should not be done in all cases mechanically as it will cause irreversible damage to the husband/accused and he will be exposed to the risk of losing the job and the visa being terminated. Ultimately, there may be amicable settlement and/ or quashing of proceedings or acquittal/discharge but the damage has already been done. The prospect of the accused remaining unemployed would not be in the interests of both as the loss of earnings will have a bearing on the maintenance claims of the wife, apart from depriving him of the means of livelihood. The proper course would be to take bonds and sureties for heavy amounts and the prosecution taking necessary steps to expeditiously complete the trial. This aspect should also be brought to the notice of concerned police officers by means of circulars issued by the DGPs.