Allowed

A.Joshua Jothi Anbaiya v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC7 Nov 2019CRL OP/29893/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court issued specific guidelines to police officers to prevent harassment during preliminary enquiries, directing the use of written summonses and adherence to Supreme Court precedents on FIR registration and investigation conduct.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is allowed; specific guidelines are issued for police conduct during enquiry to prevent harassment.

A.Joshua Jothi Anbaiya Vs the Superintendent… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.11.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.29893 of 2019

¶6

A.Joshua Jothi Anbaiya .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District.

¶8

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Krishnagiri District.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, Mathigiri Police Station, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

¶10

J.Anand Jayapaul .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry in the civil dispute on a complaint lodged by 4^th respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Selvaperumal

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj

¶14

Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 to R3

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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.

¶17

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ empowers the Magistrate to be a guardian in all the stages of

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

b)The minutes of the enquiry shall be recorded in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the police station. c)The police officer shall refrain himself or herself from harassing persons called upon for enquiry/investigation.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell,
Krishnagiri District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Mathigiri Police Station,
Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.V.Selvaperumal , Advocate SR.No. 92289
Crl.O.P.No.29893 of 2019
A.SK(11/12/2019)

¶34

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

A.Joshua Jothi Anbaiya v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Joshua Jothi Anbaiya v. the Superintendent 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

S.R.Afzallunnisha Vs the State Rep by

R.Rashidhunnisa Vs State Rep by

C.Rose Vs State by

P.Chinnammal Vs the Commissioner of Police

R.Prema W/O. Kalaimohan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its

Prabavathi Vs Jothi