Allowed

Chokkalingam v. the State Represented by

Madras HC6 Nov 2019CRL OP/29713/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court issued specific guidelines to police officers to prevent harassment during investigations, including mandatory written summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C., recording minutes in station diaries, and strict adherence to the Lalita Kumari guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; guidelines issued for police investigation conduct including written summons and diary recording.

Chokkalingam Vs the State Represented by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.11.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.29713 of 2019

Chokkalingam

Petitioner

Vs.

1.State represented by, The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police,

¶10

Erode District, Erode.

¶11

2.The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police,

¶12

Karur District, Karur. .. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioner in supplying potable water to the educational institutions in and around the districts of Erode and Karur in light of the representation dated 23.09.2019.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijaya Shankar

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj

¶16

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

ORDER

¶18

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent police have been harassing them under the guise of an enquiry/investigation and hence, has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

It is seen that in some cases, the investigation pending before the Police has been stayed by Court orders. It is needless to point out that in cases of this nature, the respondent Police will not be entitled to even proceed with the investigation and therefore, the petitioner may not have an apprehension of harassment in the hands of the Police.

¶25

5.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.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

Assistant Registrar

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

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

jas/hvk

1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode.

¶40

2.The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.V.Vijaya Shankar, Advocate SR.91853 Crl.O.P.No.29713 of 2019

¶41

PVS(CO) CB(05/12/2019)

¶42

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

¶43

Chokkalingam v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chokkalingam v. the State Represented 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

Mr.Ravi Prabhakar, Aged 44 Yrs Vs Mrs.D.Devi, Aged 40 Years

Mr.Chinni @ Ananda Babu, Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Nithyavel, M/a 29 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

S.R.Afzallunnisha Vs the State Rep by

R.Rashidhunnisa Vs State Rep by

C.Rose Vs State by