Allowed

S.P. Hari Babu, Aged 45 v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Feb 2018CRL OP/5535/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a criminal petition for an injunction against police harassment. It directs police to use written summons under Section 558 Cr.P.C., maintain diary records of enquiries, and strictly follow the guidelines laid down in Lalita Kumari regarding FIR registration and preliminary enquiries.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police to summon witnesses via written sumons under S. 558 Cr.P.C., record minutes in diaries, and follow Lalita Kumari guidelines to prevent harassment.

S.P. Hari Babu, Aged 45 Vs Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.5535 of 2018

¶6

S.P.Hari Babu ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.Inspector of Police, F-1, All Women Police Station, Chintadripet, Chennai-2.

¶9

2.Inspector of Police, F-2, Egmore Police Station, Egmore, Chennai-8.

¶10

3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, F-2 Egmore Region, Egmore, Chennai-8. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents herein not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry/investigation based on the complaint lodged by the said Deepa before the respondents police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Moorthi For Respondents: Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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 5587 Cr.P.C., specifying a particular date and time for appearing before them for such an enquiry/investigation.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶27

//True copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

stm/nl

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

1.Inspector of Police,
F-1, All Women Police Station,
Chintadripet, Chennai-2.
2.Inspector of Police,
F-2, Egmore Police Station,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
F-2 Egmore Region,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.K.Moorthy, Advocate SR.No.141030
Crl.O.P.No.5535 of 2018
SV(CO)
GN(02/03/2018)

¶33

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

S.P. Hari Babu, Aged 45 v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.P. Hari Babu, Aged 45 v. Inspector of Police

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

V.Kailash, Aged 35 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

Seshadri, M/a 30 Yrs, Vs the Superintendent of Police

C.Srithar, S/O.Chandran, Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Gajendran Vs Dr.M.Sai Kumar, I.A.S

R.Vijayarangan Vs State by:

Dr.S.Kavi, F/a 36 Years, Vs the Commissioner of Police