Disposed

K.S.J. Rakeshkumar v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC17 Sept 2019CRL OP(MD)/1066/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a Writ Petition seeking directions to prevent police harassment. The Court issued guidelines requiring written summonses under Section 160 Cr.P.C. with specific dates and times, and recording enquiry minutes in the station diary, while referencing Lalita Kumari guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to summon witnesses via written summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C. with specific date/time, record minutes in diary, and refrain from harassment.

K.S.J. Rakeshkumar Vs the Commissioner of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1066 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.09.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1066 of 2019

¶5

K.S.J. Rakeshkumar ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Pudhur Police Station,

¶9

Madurai

¶10

D.R. Sabarish ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to direct the Respondent No.2 not to harass the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 : Mr.R.Anand

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed seeking direction to the second respondent police not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

¶15

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police harassed the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

¶16

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that on the complaint given by the defacto complainant against the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending before the second respondent police.

¶17

4.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent police.

¶18

5.It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent police have been harassing him under the guise of an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/3

¶20

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1066 of 2019

¶21

enquiry/investigation and hence, has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶22

6.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.

¶23

7.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

8.In the present case in hand, the petitioner has complained of harassment by the police based on a complaint and seek 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.

¶25

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

¶26

a)While summoning any person named in the complaint or any witness to the incident complained of, the police officer shall summon such person 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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

2/3

¶32

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1066 of 2019

¶33

10.With the above observations and direction, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai 2.The Inspector of Police, Pudhur Police Station, Madurai. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.R. VENKATESAN, Advocate ( SR-87507[F] dated 18/09/2019 ) Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1066 of 2019 17.09.2019 LS MK (10.10.2019) 3P 5C

¶35

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

¶36

3/3

K.S.J. Rakeshkumar v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.J. Rakeshkumar v. the Commissioner 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

Joseph Immanuvel Vs Meera varkees

Mariappan Vs The Inspector of Police

Muthuramalingam Vs The inspector of police

Punitha Anthoniar Alayam Vs the District Collector

M/S.Elfin Ecom Pvt. Limited Vs The inspector of police

D.Soundharapandi Vs The inspector of police