Hon'ble Single Judge issued guidelines to prevent police harassment in the guise of investigation under inherent powers, directing written summonses and adherence to Lalita Kumari principles.
Petition allowed; guidelines issued for summons procedures and diary recording.
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.6125 of 2017
D.Thirunavukkarasu .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
K4 Police Station,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai.
2.P.Sudharshan .. Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent police have been harassing them under the guise of an enquiry/investigation and hence, has invoked the inherent powers of
2
this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2.By consent of both side, this Criminal Original Petition is taken up for final disposal.
3.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.
4.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
3
under the guise of investigation is brought to its notice.
5.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.
6.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.
c)The police officer shall refrain himself or herself from
harassing persons called upon for enquiry/investigation.
4
M.S.RAMESH.J,
rm
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.
7.With the above observations and direction, the Criminal
Original Petition stands allowed.
20.09.2017
Index:Yes
rm
To
Crl.O.P.No.6125 of 2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether police harassment in the guise of inquiry can be curbed under inherent powers.
What guidelines should be issued to police for conducting preliminary enquiry without harassment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and othersDistinguished¶32
Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2014 (2) SCC (1)] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
D. Thirunavukkarasu
The Inspector of Police, K4 Police Station, Anna Nagar, Chennai
P. Sudharshan
M. S. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
