Allowed

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

Madras HC20 Feb 2018CRL OP/5026/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the police not to harass the petitioner. The Court issued specific guidelines regarding summons, recording of minutes, and adherence to Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued for summoning via written notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., recording minutes in diaries, and adherence to Lalita Kumari guidelines.

Dr.a.Ayubkhan, Aged 53 Years, Vs State Rep. by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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.5026 of 2018

¶6

Dr.A.Ayubkhan .. Petitioner

¶7

State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Veppanahalli police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
2. The Joint Director of Rural
and Medical Health Services,
Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents

¶8

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the first respondent herein not to harass the petitioner at the instance of any complaint in respect of practice of allopathy medicine without due process of law.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER

¶10

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the first 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complaint.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Sd/--

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Inspector of Police, Veppanahalli police Station, Krishnagiri District.

¶26

The Joint Director of Rural

¶27

and Medical Health Services,

¶28

Krishnagiri District.

¶29

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

¶30

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.R.Thamarai Selvan, Advocate Sr.no.12797

¶32

sm:7.3.2018

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.5026 of 2018

¶34

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.a.Ayubkhan, Aged 53 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

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

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

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

G.Sathyanarayana Rao, Vs State Rep. by