Disposed

J.Joackin v. He Commissioner of Police

Madras HC20 Oct 2022CRL OP/25520/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras disposed of a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent alleged police harassment arising from a civil dispute. The court directed the police to conduct further enquiry strictly adhering to Section 160 Cr.P.C. and the Lalita Kumari guidelines, ensuring no mental or physical harassment occurs.

What did the court decide?

Issued directions to the respondents to conduct the enquiry under Section 160 Cr.P.C. without causing any mental or physical harassment to the petitioner, strictly adhering to Lalita Kumari guidelines

J.Joackin Vs He Commissioner of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.25520 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.25520 of 2022

¶7

J.Joackin ... Petitioner /vs/ 1.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi Commissionerate, Avadi, Chennai 600 054. 2.The Inspector of Police, T-8, Muthapudupet Police Station, Tamil nadu 600 055. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct respondents not to harass the petitioner.

¶9

For Petitioner ... Mr.L.K.Charles Alexander For Respondents ... Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

Page 1 of 6

¶11

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

¶12

Crl.O.P.No.25520 of 2022

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct respondents

¶15

not to harass the petitioner.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶17

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶18

It is stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that nor any case is pending and neither any petition enquiry is seen to have got initiated by giving any CSR Number.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a civil dispute between himself and one Muniasamy and the said Muniasamy attempts to give criminal colour for the same; only because of the complaint if any given by him to the first respondent police, the petitioner is being called by the first respondent to make his appearance in the police station; it is further submitted that the said Muniasamy is also working in Police Department.

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.25520 of 2022

¶23

Since no CSR or FIR is pending, there is no need to call the petitioner by the respondent police for any enquiry. Since the investigation of the case is prerogative with the police, no much interference is done 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 also be saved. In the case in hand, the petitioner has alleged that he is being harassed by the police on the complaint given by one Muniasamy. It is seen that the civil case is being given with criminal colour and hence a direction should be given to the respondent police not to harass the petitioner in the name of enquiry. If the preliminary enquiry of the police itself reveals that it is a matter of civil in nature, the third respondent ought to relegate the parties to the appropriate forum by dropping the further action. In this regard, it is relevant to attract the attention of the respondents to the guidelines issued in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2014 (2) SCC (1)].

¶24

Page 3 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.25520 of 2022

¶27

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed. The

¶28

following directions have been given to the respondents while conducting enquiry in the complaint:

¶29

(i) The police officer shall send the written summon for enquiry under Section 160 of Cr.P.C by mentioning the time and date for appearance for enquiry and also about the name of the person whose complaint is taken for enquiry.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(iv) The essential guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2014 (2) SCC (1)], shall be strictly followed.

¶33

20.10.2022

¶34

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

¶35

Page 4 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.25520 of 2022

¶38

¶39

1.The Commissioner of Police, Avadi Commissionerate, Avadi, Chennai 600 054.

¶40

2.The Inspector of Police, T-8, Muthapudupet Police Station, Tamil nadu 600 055.

¶41

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶42

Page 5 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.25520 of 2022

¶45

R.N.MANJULA ,J.

¶46

gsk/shk

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.25520 of 2022

¶48

20.10.2022

¶49

Page 6 of 6

¶50

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

J.Joackin v. He Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Joackin v. He 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

Ramachandran Vs the State by

R.Siva Vs the Inspector of Police

V.K.Jaychandran Vs the State Rep by

Rajiallah Vs the Superintendent of Police

Thileepan Gunasekaran Vs the State Rep by

V.Gunasekaran Vs State by the Superintendent of Police