Allowed

N.Nagaraj, M/a 56 Years, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Oct 2017CRL OP/22886/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent police harassment. The court issued mandatory guidelines regarding summons, recording of minutes, and adherence to Supreme Court precedents on preliminary enquiries to regulate police conduct.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed and guidelines are issued to regulate police summoning, recording of enquiry minutes, and prevention of harassment.

N.Nagaraj, M/a 56 Years, Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:27.10.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.22886 of 2017

¶6

N. Nagaraj .... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Krishnagiri.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri. .... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct first respondent police not to harass the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Vishwanth

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER

¶13

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the first 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

3.This Court, exercising its power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code normally would not interfere with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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.

¶16

4.In the present case in hand, the petitioner have complained of harassment by the police based on a complaint and

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

6.With the above observations and direction, the Criminal
Original Petition stands allowed.
-Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.S.C.Vishwanth, Advocate Sr.No.76048
Crl.O.P.No.22886 of 2017
CO(SVI)
RRI 14/11/2017

¶23

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

N.Nagaraj, M/a 56 Years, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Nagaraj, M/a 56 Years, v. the Inspector of Police

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

Rajagopal, M/57 Years Vs the State Rep.by

Meenakshi, F/A-31 Yrs Vs the District Superintendent of

K.Velayutham, M/56, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Varadarajan Vs the Commissioner of Police

Mr.Gandhi, M/A.63 Years Vs the State Rep. by

M.S.K.Fincop Finance Vs N.Sivakumar