Allowed

Mr.M.Gowri Shankar, A/38, v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Madras HC13 Feb 2018CRL OP/4107/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued guidelines under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to curb police harassment. It mandated written summons for witnesses under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and adherence to Supreme Court norms on FIR registration, while affirming police autonomy in investigation.

What did the court decide?

Guidelines issued mandating written summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C. with specific dates and recording of enquiry minutes in station diaries.

Mr.M.Gowri Shankar, A/38, Vs the Deputy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.4107 of 2018

¶6

M.Gowri Shankar

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Madhavaram Range,
Madhavaram, Chennai
2. The Inspector of Police,
Puzhal Police Station,
Puzhal, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents herein to not to harass the petitioner and his other colleagues unnecessarily under the guise of investigating the complaint of the petitioner dated 05.01.2018.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohammed Rafi For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate ORDER

¶11

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent police have been harassing his 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

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

¶13

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

¶14

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 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 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 petitioners 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.

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhavaram Range,

¶27

Madhavaram, Chennai

¶28

The Inspector of Police, Puzhal Police Station,

¶29

Puzhal, Chennai

¶30

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.4107 of 2018
kgk(co)
nr 06/03/2018

¶32

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

Mr.M.Gowri Shankar, A/38, v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.M.Gowri Shankar, A/38, v. the Deputy Commissioner of

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

G.Anbalagan, M/43 Years, Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Vijayakumar, Aged 67 Years, Vs State Rep. by

C.Senthilkumar, Vs State by

V.K.Ranganathan, Aged 46 Years Vs State by

M.Elumalai, (M/49) Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Perumal (M/37) Vs the Inspector of Police