Allowed

R.Santharaman, M/A.49 Years v. State Rep by

Madras HC2 Feb 2018CRL OP/2955/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a Criminal Original Petition alleging police harassment, issuing guidelines on summons, diary recording, and adherence to Lalita Kumari guidelines to prevent police overreach during investigation.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed with directions to observe specific guidelines for summoning, recording minutes in the diary, and refraining from harassment.

R.Santharaman, M/A.49 Years Vs State Rep by — Madras HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.2955 of 2018

¶6

R.Santharaman .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep.by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

¶9

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.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER

¶11

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent police 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

the police under the guise of investigation is brought to its notice.

¶16

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.

¶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/-
Asst.Registrar (CS II )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
AT
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Villupuram,
Villupuram District.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to M.Krishnamoorthy,advocate sr.no.7796

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.2955 of 2018 co(br) GSP17/02/2018

¶24

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

R.Santharaman, M/A.49 Years v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Santharaman, M/A.49 Years v. State Rep by

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

M.Mangaiyarkarasi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

K.Kalaikumaran, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Muruganantham, Aged 56 Years, Vs the State by

D.Stalin Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Chellapandi Vs State Represented by

P.Arunkumr, Aged 27 Years, Vs State Rep. by