Allowed

G.Sathyanarayana Rao, v. State Rep. by

Madras HC20 Feb 2018CRL OP/4865/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued guidelines under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent police harassment under the guise of investigation. Directives include written summonses with time, diary recording of minutes, and adherence to Lalita Kumari guidelines for preliminary enquiries.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; guidelines issued for police summoning, diary maintenance, and adherence to Lalita Kumari standards.

G.Sathyanarayana Rao, Vs State Rep. by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.4865 of 2018

¶6

G.Sathyanarayana Rao .. Petitioner/Third Party

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep.by Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District.
2. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Guduvanchery range, Kancheepuram District.
3. Inspection of Police,
Guduvanchery Police Station,
Guduvanchery, Kancheepuram District .. Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Hariharan for
M/S.KV Law Firm
For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District.

¶31

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guduvanchery range, Kancheepuram District.

¶32

The Inspection of Police, Guduvanchery Police Station, Guduvanchery, Kancheepuram District.

¶33

The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to M/s.K.V.Law firm Advocate sr 12867
Crl.O.P.No.4865 of 2018
kj(co)
aa05/03/2018

¶34

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

G.Sathyanarayana Rao, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sathyanarayana Rao, 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

Lakshmanan, Aged 49 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

P.Udhaya Kumar, Aged 22 Years, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Trevelyan D Souza Aged About Vs State Represented by

Dr.a.Ayubkhan, Aged 53 Years, Vs State Rep. by

N.Soundarajan, Aged 56 Years Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Murugan, Aged 42 Years, Vs the Deputy Commissioner of