Allowed

M.Shanmuga Sundaram v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Madras HC12 Mar 2018CRL OP/7392/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal original petition seeking protection from police harassment. It issued guidelines mandating written summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C., recording minutes in police diaries, and adhering to Supreme Court directives on investigations.

What did the court decide?

Guidelines issued requiring written summonses under Section 160 Cr.P.C., recording enquiries in diaries, and adherence to Supreme Court guidelines on investigations; police directed to refrain from ha

M.Shanmuga Sundaram Vs the Deputy… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.03.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7392 of 2018

¶6

M.Shanmuga Sundaram ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Mangadu Range, Chennai
2. The Inspector of Police,
T-14, Mangadu Police Station,
Mangadu Chennai – 122. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2 nd respondent not to harass the
petitioner on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Antony
Daniel without conducting proper enquiry.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Varanesh
For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan
Government Advocate(Crl side)
ORDER

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶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-VII)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

smn

¶25

¶26

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mangadu Range, Chennai

¶27

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

¶28

The Inspector of Police, T-14, Mangadu Police Station, Mangadu Chennai – 122.

¶29

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.7392 of 2018

¶31

TR(21/03/2018)

¶32

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

M.Shanmuga Sundaram v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Shanmuga Sundaram 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

R.Kathiravan, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of

Shankaran, a 53 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Shyamsundar, M/a 45 Years, Vs the State Rep. by Its

K.Gokulakrishnan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Rajendra Raja, Aged 87 Years Vs the State Rep. by

Mrs.a.Kavitha, Aged 33 Years, Vs State by