Allowed

G.Edward Karthik Aged 41 Years v. State Rep by

Madras HC15 Feb 2018CRL OP/4268/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a criminal original petition invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to check police harassment. It issued binding guidelines for summoning witnesses via written notice under Section 160, recording enquiry minutes in the station diary, and adhering to Supreme Court precedents on FIR registration to prevent abuse of investigation powers.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to summon persons through written warrant under Sec 160 Cr.P.C., record minutes in station diary, refrain from harassment, and follow Lalita Kumari guidelines.

G.Edward Karthik Aged 41 Years Vs State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH Crl.O.P.No.4268 of 2018

¶5

G.Edward Karthik .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State Rep by Inspector of Police, R9 Valasarvakkam Police station, Chennai. .. Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent police not to harass the petitioner.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Beenigton For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

6.With the above observations and direction, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

¶25