Ramakrishnan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 March, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Ramakrishnan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 March, 2019

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                             1

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED:15.03.2019

                                                         CORAM:

                                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                 Crl.O.P.No. 9859 of 2019

                      Ramakrishnan                                                 ...Petitioner
                                                                  Vs.
                      1.The Superintendent of Police,
                        Office of the Superintendent of Police,
                        Nagappattinam District.

                      2.The Inspector of Police,
                        All Women Police Station,
                        Nagappattinam,
                        Nagappattinam District.                                    ...Respondents


                      PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
                      direct the second respondent Police not to harass the petitioner in connection
                      with Crime No.Not known of 2019 pending on the file of second respondent
                      Police.
                                   For Petitioner       : M/s.Greetha Senthilkumar

                                   For Respondents      : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
                                                          Additional Public Prosecutor.

                                                          ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking direction to the second respondent police not to harass the petitioner in connection with Crime No.Not known of 2019 pending on the file of second respondent Police. http://www.judis.nic.in 2

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

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents police submits that on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, petition enquiry is pending.

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

5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the second 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.

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 http://www.judis.nic.in 3 reported and filed before this Court seeking for directions to refrain the police officials from harassing the persons named in a complaint.

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.

8. In the present case in hand, the petitioner has 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.

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

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.

b)The minutes of the enquiry shall be recorded in the general http://www.judis.nic.in 4 diary/station diary/daily diary of the police station.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, rri

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

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.

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

15.04.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order rri To

1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Nagappattinam District.

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nagappattinam, Nagappattinam District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, http://www.judis.nic.in 5 High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.9859 of 2019

http://www.judis.nic.in

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court