Single judge ordered directions to police regarding issuance of written summonses under Section 160 Cr.P.C., recording minutes, and refraining from harassment of persons investigated, adhering to the Lalita Kumari guidelines.
Police directed to summon via written summons, record minutes, refrain from harassment, and follow Lalita Kumari guidelines.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.09.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH Crl.O.P.No.3155 of 2017
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents to not to harass the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.I.Abrar MD Abdullah For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
2
It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent police have been harassing them under the guise of an enquiry/investigation and hence, has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2.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.
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
3
also not turn a blind eye to instances of harassment by the police under the guise of investigation is brought to its notice.
4.In the present case in hand, the petitioners have complained of harassment by the police based on a complaint and seek 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 petitioners may not be the same to the
police officer.
5.In order to circumvent such situations, the following guidelines are issued:
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.
b)The minutes of the enquiry shall be recorded in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the police station.
M.S.RAMESH.J,
4
cgi c)The police officer shall refrain himself or herself from
harassing persons called upon for enquiry/investigation.
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.
6.With the above observations and direction, this Criminal
Original Petition stands allowed.
20.09.2017
Index:Yes
cgi/rm
To
Crl.O.P.No.3155 of 2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether direction can be issued to the police to refrain from harassing petitioners under the guise of investigation.
What guidelines should be followed by police officers to ensure fair exercise of investigative powers and prevent harassment.
Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. warrant intervention in police investigations alleging harassment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P.Explained¶5
Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2014 (2) SCC (1)] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
ARK. Shanmugam
S. Sree Kumar
A.S. Sree Nandhini
Shreedhevi
Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell
M.S. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
