Disposed

Govindammal v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC3 Aug 2020CRL OP/11525/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed allegations of police harassment by issuing guidelines for mandatory written summonses under Section 160 Cr.P.C., diary recording of enquiries, adherence to Lalita Kumari guidelines, and a general prohibition on harassment during civil dispute pendency.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to police for written summonses under S. 160 Cr.P.C., diary recording, adherence to Lalita Kumari guidelines, and prohibition on harassment.

Govindammal Vs the Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.08.2020 CORAM:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No. 11525 of 2020

¶3

Govindammal

¶4

W/o. Elumalai 38/4, Ananjothi Street, Pillaiyarpalayam, Kanchipuram. ...Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District.

¶7

The Inspector of Police, Siva Kanchi Police Station, (Court Campus) Kancheepuram District. ...Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the respondent Police not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry, during the pendency of civil dispute, without due process of law.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar For Respondents: Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent police not to harass the petitioner in connection with Crime No.Not known of 2020 pending on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶12

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

¶13

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submits that on the complaint given by one E.Thiyagarajan against the petitioner, petition enquiry is pending in CSR.No.499 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

1/3

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

2/3

¶25

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

¶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

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
dh
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Kancheepuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Siva Kanchi Police Station,
(Court Campus)
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.11525 of 2020
ev(co)
aa29/09/2020

¶30

3/3

¶31

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

Govindammal v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindammal 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

K.Sundar Vs the Director General of Police

R.Govindasamy Vs the State Rep.by

R.Govindasamy Vs the State Rep.by

K.Kamaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

Karnan Vs State Rep.by

Duraisamy Vs the Station House Officer