Allowed

C.Elangovan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC20 Sept 2017CRL OP/4925/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to issue guidelines to prevent police harassment. The court issued a general order allowing the petition and directing the police to follow procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Guidelines issued for police summons, diary recording, refraining from harassment, and adherence to Lalita Kumari guidelines.

C.Elangovan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.09.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.4925 of 2016
C.Elangovan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Vellore District.
Vellore.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Ranipet Police Station,
SIPCOT, Vellore District.
3. L.Manoharan .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents not to harass the petitioner to conduct any enquiry in so far as deciding the genuiness of the sale agreement dated 07.05.2011 and other connected documents which are under the Judicial Scrutiny of a suit in O.S.No.32 of 2014 pending before the Court of Principal District Judge, Vellore is concerned with a consequential direction and the petitioner in connection with the complaint given by the 3^rd respondent against the petitioner.

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Prabakaran

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan

¶12

Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2 Mr.Nirmal Kumar for R3

¶13

ORDER

¶14

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent police

¶15

have been harassing him under the guise of an enquiry/investigation and hence, has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶16

2.An enquiry into a non cognizable offence or a cognizable

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

4.In the present case in hand, the petitioner has 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.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH.J,

cgi

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(1)] shall be strictly adhered to.

¶33

6.With the above observations and direction, the Criminal
Original Petition stands allowed.
20.09.2017
Index:Yes
cgi/rm
To

¶34

The Superintendent of Police, Vellore District. Vellore.

¶35

The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station, SIPCOT, Vellore District.

¶36

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.4925 of 2016

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.Elangovan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Elangovan v. the Superintendent 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

Manikandan, Aged 32 Yrs Vs the Superintendent of Police

Kanmani, Aged 42 Years, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Usharani, Aged 35 Yrs Vs the Superintendent of Police

M/S. Vgp Finances Limited, Vs the Deputy Registrar of

M.M.Syed Sikanthar, M/a 39 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Muthuvel, Vs the Insepctor of Police