Disposed

M.Gnanaselvi v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC29 Dec 2021CRL OP(MD)/21142/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a Criminal Original Petition alleging police harassment. It issued specific guidelines, including mandates for written summons and recording minutes, to prevent harassment while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to police to serve written summons under Section 160 CrPC, record minutes in diary, and refrain from harassment while adhering to Lalita Kumari guidelines.

M.Gnanaselvi Vs The Superintendent of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD)No.21142 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.12.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD)No.21142 of 2021

¶7

1.M.Gnanaselvi 2.M.Sowndarya : Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (South), Madurai City, Madurai. : Respondents No.1&2/Complainant 3. N.Gowri : 3rd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to issue appropriate direction to the second respondent not to harass the petitioners under the guise of enquiry at the instance of the third respondent.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Srinivasan For R1 and R2 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent police not to harass the petitioners under the guise of enquiry.

¶15

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

¶16

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, would submit that on the complaint given by the third respondent against the petitioners, petition enquiry is pending on the file of the second respondent police.

¶17

4.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶18

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

¶19

1/3

¶20

Crl.O.P(MD)No.21142 of 2021

¶21

5.It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent police has been harassing them under the guise of enquiry/ investigation and hence, invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is necessary for protecting the rights of the petitioners.

¶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 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.

¶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 second respondent police is directed to serve summons mentioning the CSR number, date of complaint and the name of the complainant.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

2/3

¶32

Crl.O.P(MD)No.21142 of 2021

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar (AE)

¶36

// True Copy //

¶37

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶38

das

¶39

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶40

¶41

The Superintendent of Police, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶42

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (South), Madurai City, Madurai.

¶43

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶44

+1 CC to M/s.A.SRINIVASAN, Advocate ( SR-40560[F] dated 31/12/2021 )

¶45

Crl.O.P(MD)No.21142 of 2021

¶46

29.12.2021

¶47

USK (06.01.2022) 3P 5C

¶48

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

¶49

3/3

M.Gnanaselvi v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Gnanaselvi 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

The Management Vs the Joint Director

The General Manager Vs Jeya

The Managing Director, Vs Sala

Shajakan Vs The Inspector of Police

Nagasankar Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Ganapathi Narayanan Vs D.K.Hema Madhubala