Disposed

V.Venkatesan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC28 Jul 2020CRL OP/11184/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued guidelines to the respondent police to prevent harassment of petitioners during an investigation. The court directed police to use written Summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C., record minutes in the diary, and adhere to Supreme Court guidelines from Lalita Kumari.

What did the court decide?

Issued guidelines for police enquiry procedure including written summoning and diary recording to prevent harassment.

V.Venkatesan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.07.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No. 11184 of 2020

¶6

V.Venkatesan S/o. Late. Venkataramanappa, No.2/357, Kamandoddi Village & Post, Shoolagiri, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District – 635 109.

¶7

V.Krishnan

¶8

S/o. Late Venkataramanappa No.4/420, Moovendar nagar, Bagalur Road, Hosur Town & Taluk, Krishnagiri District – 635 109. ...Petitioners Vs.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, (Anti Land Grabbing Cell) Krishnagiri District. ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondents not to harass the petitioners by appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶12

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Jayaprakash For Respondents: Mr.S.Karthikeyan, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent police not to harass these petitioners in connection with Crime No.Not known of 2018 pending on the file of Respondent Police.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent police harassed the petitioners under the guise of enquiry.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing

¶17

for the respondent police submits that on the complaint given by one Ravindra against the petitioners, petition enquiry is pending.

¶18

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

¶19

It is the grievance of the petitioners 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

In the present case in hand, the petitioners have 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 petitioners may not be the same to the police officer.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

b)The minutes of the enquiry shall be recorded in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ general diary/station diary/daily diary of the police station.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO MDU)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dh
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
(Anti Land Grabbing Cell)
Krishnagiri District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No. 11184 of 2020
RJI(CO)
GMY(09/09/2020)

¶30

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

V.Venkatesan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Venkatesan 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

Shoban Babu Vs the Inspector of Police

Jayashankar Vs the State Rep.by

Manikandan Vs Pushpa

Rathakrishnan Vs the State, Represented by

M/S. Indus Towers Limited Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sudhakar Vs the Inspector of Police