Okay, I will provide a summary based on the provided information. Please note that the provided case information is incomplete and appears to refer to a section of the Code of Criminal Procedure rather than a specific court case. Therefore, I will create a hypothetical case summary based on Section 43 of the CrPC, which deals with the arrest of a private person.

Short Summary

This hypothetical case concerns the legality of an arrest made by a private citizen under Section 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The court examines whether the private person had reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested individual had committed a non-bailable and cognizable offence, and whether the arrested person was handed over to a police officer without unnecessary delay. The court ultimately holds that the arrest was unlawful because the private person did not have reasonable grounds to believe a cognizable offense had been committed.

Facts

Mr. Sharma, a private citizen, witnessed Mr. Verma behaving suspiciously near a jewelry store. Based on this suspicion, Mr. Sharma apprehended Mr. Verma and detained him. Mr. Sharma then handed Mr. Verma over to the local police station. Mr. Verma was subsequently charged with attempted theft. The trial court acquitted Mr. Verma, and he then filed a case against Mr. Sharma for wrongful confinement.

Issues

1. Whether Mr. Sharma, as a private citizen, had the legal authority to arrest Mr. Verma under Section 43 of the CrPC.
2. Whether Mr. Sharma had "reasonable grounds" to believe that Mr. Verma had committed a non-bailable and cognizable offense.
3. Whether Mr. Sharma handed over Mr. Verma to the police "without unnecessary delay."

Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. Verma)

Mr. Verma argued that Mr. Sharma's actions constituted wrongful confinement because the arrest was illegal. He contended that Mr. Sharma lacked reasonable grounds to believe that he had committed a cognizable offense, and that merely acting suspiciously is not sufficient justification for arrest under Section 43.

Respondent's Arguments (Mr. Sharma)

Mr. Sharma argued that he acted in good faith and under the impression that Mr. Verma was about to commit a crime. He claimed that Mr. Verma's suspicious behavior near the jewelry store provided sufficient grounds for him to believe that a cognizable offense was about to be committed, justifying the arrest under Section 43.

Court's Reasoning

The court analyzed the requirements of Section 43 of the CrPC. The court emphasized that the power of a private person to arrest is an exception to the general rule that only police officers can arrest. The court stated that "reasonable grounds" must be based on credible information and not mere suspicion. The court found that Mr. Sharma's suspicion, based solely on Mr. Verma's behavior near the jewelry store, did not constitute "reasonable grounds" to believe that Mr. Verma had committed or was about to commit a non-bailable and cognizable offense.

Conclusion

The court ruled in favor of Mr. Verma. The court held that Mr. Sharma's arrest of Mr. Verma was unlawful because it did not meet the requirements of Section 43 of the CrPC. The court awarded damages to Mr. Verma for wrongful confinement.