Allowed

Rajiallah v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC20 Oct 2022CRL OP/25434/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition challenged police harassment during an enquiry alleged to be falsely colored as criminal. The court directed the fourth respondent police to issue valid summon under Section 160 Cr.P.C., record distinctions in the diary, prevent harassment, and adhere to Supreme Court guidelines from Lalita Kumari regarding civil matters given criminal colour.

What did the court decide?

Directed the fourth respondent to issue written summon under Section 160 Cr.P.C., record minutes in diaries, ensure no harassment, and follow Lalita Kumari guidelines.

Rajiallah Vs the Superintendent of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.25434 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.10.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.25434 of 2022

¶7

1.Rajiallah 2.Sheik Badusha

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

/vs/

¶10

1.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶11

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.

¶13

4.The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the fourth respondent police not to harass the petitioners without due process of law.

¶15

For Petitioners ... Ms.S.Varsha For Respondents ... Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.25434 of 2022

¶19

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to

¶20

the fourth respondent police not to harass the petitioners without due process of law.

¶21

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

¶22

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

¶23

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police has submitted that on the complaint given by the defacto complainant against the petitioners, a petition enquiry is pending in C.S.R.No.1675 of 2022, on the file of the fourth respondent police.

¶24

The petitioners have alleged that there is a civil dispute between the petitioners and one Shanmugam. It is submitted that the petitioners were not even allowed to submit their facts when they present for enquiry before the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-

¶25

operate for the enquiry provided they are not harassed by the police.

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.25434 of 2022

¶29

Since the investigation of a criminal case is the prerogative of the

¶30

police, no interference can be made by the Courts normally. However, if it is brought to the knowledge of the Court that harassment is being done to any one in the name of investigation, the aggrieved should not be left without any remedy. In the case in hand, the petitioners have alleged that they are being harassed by the police on the complaint given by the defacto complainant. If the preliminary enquiry of the police itself reveals that it is a matter of civil in nature, the fourth respondent ought to have relegated the parties to the appropriate forum by dropping further action on the complaint. It is seen that the civil case is being given with criminal colour and hence a direction should be given to the fourth respondent police not to harass the petitioners in the name of enquiry.

¶31

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed. The following directions have been given to the fourth respondent while conducting enquiry in the complaint:

¶32

(i) The police officer shall send the written summon for enquiry

¶33

under Section 160 of Cr.P.C by mentioning the time and date for

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.25434 of 2022

¶37

appearance for enquiry and also about the name of the person whose complaint is taken for enquiry.

¶38

(ii) The minutes of the enquiry shall be recorded in the general

¶39

diary/station diary/daily diary of the concerned police station.

¶40

(iii) The fourth respondent should ensure that no harassment is caused to the petitioners either physically or mentally by the police officer or any other officer of the department while enquiring the petitioners or other witnesses in this regard.

¶41

(iv) The essential guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

¶42

Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh

¶43

and others [2014 (2) SCC (1)], shall be strictly followed.

¶44

20.10.2022

¶45

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gsk/shk

¶46

Page 4 of 6

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.25434 of 2022

¶49

¶50

1.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶51

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.

¶52

3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.

¶53

4.The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.

¶54

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶55

Page 5 of 6

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

Crl.O.P.No.25434 of 2022

¶58

R.N.MANJULA ,J.

¶59

gsk/shk

¶60

Crl.O.P.No.25434 of 2022

¶61

20.10.2022

¶62

Page 6 of 6

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rajiallah v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiallah 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

Ramachandran Vs the State by

R.Siva Vs the Inspector of Police

V.K.Jaychandran Vs the State Rep by

J.Joackin Vs He Commissioner of Police

Thileepan Gunasekaran Vs the State Rep by

V.Gunasekaran Vs State by the Superintendent of Police