Allowed

R.Arul Raj, M/a 40 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC25 Oct 2017CRL OP/22540/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed the Criminal Original Petition filed to stop alleged police harassment. The Court issued guidelines mandating written summons, diary entries, and adherence to Supreme Court precedents while affirming police investigative powers.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; guidelines issued for police summoning and recording of enquiries to prevent harassment.

R.Arul Raj, M/a 40 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:25.10.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.22540 of 2017

R.Arulraj

...Petitioner

Vs.

State Rep.by its
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Thirumangalam Range,
Chennai District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Nolambur Police Station,
Chennai- 95. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to direct second respondent police not to
harass the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Dayalan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
It is the grievance of the petitioner that the second
respondent police have been harassing the petitioner under the
guise of an enquiry/investigation and hence, has invoked the
inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶10

An enquiry into a non cognizable offence or a cognizable offence is the unfettered powers of the Investigation Officers so long as the power to investigate/enquire into these offences are legitimately exercised within the frame work of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Magistrate to be a guardian in all the stages of the police investigation, there is no power envisaging him to interfere with the actual investigation or the mode of investigation. It is in this background that numerous petitions complaining of harassment are being reported and filed before this Court seeking for directions to refrain the police officials from harassing the persons named in a complaint.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

3.This Court, exercising its power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code normally would not interfere with the investigation conducted by a police officer. Nevertheless, it would also not turn a blind eye to instances of harassment by the police under the guise of investigation is brought to its notice.

¶13

4.In the present case in hand, the petitioner have complained of harassment by the police based on a complaint and seeks for this Court's intervention by way of a direction. The term 'harassment' by itself has a very wide meaning and hence, what could be harassment to the petitioner may not be the same to the police officer.

¶14

5.In order to circumvent such situations, the following guidelines are issued:

¶15

a)While summoning any persons named in the complaint or any witness to the incident complained of, the police officer shall summon such persons through a written summon under Section 160 Cr.P.C., specifying a particular date and time for appearing before them for such an enquiry/investigation.

¶16

b)The minutes of the enquiry shall be recorded in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the police station.

¶17

c)The police officer shall refrain himself or herself from harassing persons called upon for enquiry/investigation.

¶18

d)The guidelines stipulated for preliminary enquiry or registration of FIR by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2014 (2) SCC (1)] shall be strictly adhered to.

¶19

6.With the above observations and direction, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

aav

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

¶25

The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Thirumangalam Range,
Chennai District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Nolambur Police Station,
Chennai- 95.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to MR. D. Dayalan, Advocate SR.75067
Crl.O.P.No.22540 of 2017
CS-V
EU(15/11/2017 )

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Arul Raj, M/a 40 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Arul Raj, M/a 40 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Srivatsa Kengasubbiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

Jhonsirani Vs the Commissioner of Police

Usha Devi R.P., Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

P. Narayanasamy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Chinnakolanthaiyammal Vs The District Collector

Sasi @ Sasikala, (50 Years) Vs the Inspector of Police