Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3749 (MAD)

G. Rikhabchand v. Karunakaran

2013-10-30

T.MATHIVANAN

body2013
Judgment : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the contemnor/third respondent for his wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court, dated 16.3.2012 and made in Crl.O.P.No.2740 of 2012. 2. It is revealed from the records that on 28.8.2009, the petitioner herein has lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, wherein the petitioner has stated that under the guise of recovery of stolen jewellery one Mr. Sampath, who was working as Head Constable at E1, Mylapore Police Station, Chennai and presently working as SSI, had seized 203.730 grams of gold jewellery from the pawn shop of the petitioner. 3. He has also stated that the said jewellery were not either produced before the concerned court or kept under the custody of the police. But according to the petitioner, the whereabouts of the jewellery, which were recovered by the said Sampath (HC) were not known. Therefore, to initiate necessary action, the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 28.8.2009. Since there was no effective action on the part of the Commissioner of Police in registering the case, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition in Crl.O.P.No.2740 of 2012 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the third respondent police to register the case based on his complaint, dated 28.8.2009. 4. After hearing both sides, this Court on 16.3.2012 has passed an order directing the third respondent, who is the contemnor herein to register the case based on the complaint, dated 28.8.2009 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, provided any cognizable offence is made out and take up the investigation and proceed further in accordance with law. 5. According to the petitioner, the above order has not been complied with by the third respondent and since the third respondent has flouted the order of this Court on ground, the petitioner has come forward with this petition to punish the third respondent being the contemnor under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 6. It is obvious to note here that on 1.2.2013, this Court has passed an order wherein it is stated that it appears from the CD file, which was produced by the third respondent, a case was registered on 20.12.2012 based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, dated 28.8.2009. 6. It is obvious to note here that on 1.2.2013, this Court has passed an order wherein it is stated that it appears from the CD file, which was produced by the third respondent, a case was registered on 20.12.2012 based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, dated 28.8.2009. But there was no progress in the investigation. This Court has also observed in the above said order that the complainant, who is the petitioner herein, was so far not called to the police station for the purpose of examination under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C., by way of investigation and that the investigation is yet to be started. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who had represented on behalf of the contemnor, had also sought for a direction at the time of passing the above order on 1.2.2013 to expedite the investigation and make some progress in the investigation. Accordingly, Mr. Ravisekar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mylapore, was directed to supervise and monitor the progress of the investigation and see that the investigation is completed within 6.3.2013 so as to enable the investigating officer to file the final report before the appropriate court. 8. It is manifested from the records that the respondent herein/contemnor has filed three status reports. The first report was filed on 18.1.2013. The second report was filed on 5.3.2013 and the third report was filed on 25.10.2013. 9. In the first status report, which was filed on 18.1.2013, the respondent, in paragraph 7, has stated that the petitioner had sent a complaint, dated 28.8.2009 to the Commissioner of Police and the same was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station through the higher officials and during the relevant point of time, his predecessor, namely, Mr. Mannarmannan was transferred on 23.7.2009 and that he had assumed charge only on 29.6.2011. 10. He has also stated that based on the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2740 of 2012, the order passed by this Court was communicated to the second respondent in Crl.O.P.No.2740 of 2012, viz., the Deputy Commissioner of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station and he had also called the petitioner to furnish the copy of the original complaint enabling him to register the complaint. 11. He would further submit that since the complaint, dated 28.8.2009 was misplaced by his predecessor Mr. 11. He would further submit that since the complaint, dated 28.8.2009 was misplaced by his predecessor Mr. Mannarmannan, he was not able to register the case and therefore, there was a delay. 12. He has also stated in paragraph 8 that based on his request the learned counsel for the petitioner had given a fresh complaint, dated 28.8.2009 and based on the fresh complaint, a case in Cr.No.2252 of 2012 for the offences under Section 406 and 420 I.P.C. was registered and apart from this, in paragraph 6 of the first status report, the contemnor has stated that the then Inspector of Police, Mylapore Police Station (L&O), had seized 144 grams jewellery from the complainant's shop, which were said to have been stolen by the accused Saravanan in connection with the case in Cr.Nos.169, 264, 254, and 65 of 2009. 13. In the second status report, which was filed before this Court on 6.3.2012, in pargraph 12, the respondent/contemnor has stated that he had to identify the four persons, who are specified by the petitioner and that they had to be interrogated to unearth the real facts of the case. He has also stated that the pawn sheets and other vital documents are to be collected from the petitioner in order to complete the investigation. 14. When the matter was taken up for hearing, on 25.10.2013, the third status report was filed by the respondent with the verbatim reproduction of the same averments contained in the earlier status reports. However, in the second portion of paragraph No. 6, he has stated that the investigation revealed that the recovered properties were produced before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate , Saidapet, Chennai by Mr. Mannarmannan/A1, the then Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai and he had also obtained A.No.108 of 2009 (Cr.No.439 of 2008), A.No.89 of 2009 (Cr.No.1460 of 2008), A.No.91 of 2009 (Cr.No.65 of 2009), A.No.89 of 2009 (Cr.No.169 of 2009), A.No.90 of 2009 (Cr.No.270 of 2009), A.No.87 of 2009 (Cr.No.254 of 2009) and A.No.85 of 2009 (Cr.No.264 of 2009). 15. Mannarmannan/A1, the then Inspector of Police, E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai and he had also obtained A.No.108 of 2009 (Cr.No.439 of 2008), A.No.89 of 2009 (Cr.No.1460 of 2008), A.No.91 of 2009 (Cr.No.65 of 2009), A.No.89 of 2009 (Cr.No.169 of 2009), A.No.90 of 2009 (Cr.No.270 of 2009), A.No.87 of 2009 (Cr.No.254 of 2009) and A.No.85 of 2009 (Cr.No.264 of 2009). 15. In the third portion of paragraph No.6, he has stated that after the completion of the investigation he had laid a final report as against Mr.Mannarmannan/A1 and Sampath/A2 in the case in Cr.No.2252 of 2012 under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., which was subsequently altered into under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C., and the same was taken on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai as C.C.No.2004 of 2013 and now the case is pending trial. 16. In this connection, Mr. A.D. Jagadishchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant would submit that though the contemnor had stated in his third status report that he had filed the final report after the completion of the investigation, before the XVIiI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, as it is revealed from the records, he had wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court, dated 16.3.2012 by not complying with the condition, i.e., to register the case within the stipulated period of two weeks. 17. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor had fairly admitted that despite there was some latches on the part of the contemnor, it could not be termed as wilful default on his part, and since there was no wilful default on the part of the contemnor, he might be admonished as he is nearing superannuation. 18. He has also submitted that if any punishment is awarded, his entire career would be spoiled and therefore, he has urged this Court to admonish him. 19. This Court has perused the averments of the petition filed by the petitioner as well as the averments of the status reports filed by the contemnor. 20. 18. He has also submitted that if any punishment is awarded, his entire career would be spoiled and therefore, he has urged this Court to admonish him. 19. This Court has perused the averments of the petition filed by the petitioner as well as the averments of the status reports filed by the contemnor. 20. From the above materials, this Court finds that now the case in C.C.No.2004 of 2013 is pending trial on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, in which the accused Mannarmannan/A1 and Sampath/A2 , who were the then Inspector of Police and the Head Constable respectively attached to E-1 Mylapore Police Station, Chennai, have been facing the charges under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C. 21. In this connection, this Court would like to have the reference of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 22. According to Section 2(a), there are two kinds of contempt, viz., civil contempt and criminal contempt. a. Sub clause (b) to Section 2 defines what is civil contempt, whereas sub clause (c) to Section 2 defines what is criminal contempt. b. Sub Clause (b) to Section 2 contemplates that "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. c. In so far as sub clause (c) is concerned, the conduct of the respondent can be brought under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 23. Before parting with this order, this Court finds that it may be appropriate to quote the lamentation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anil Ratan Sarkar vs. Hirak Ghosh reported in (2002) 4 SCC 21 : AIR 2002 SC 1405 , wherein a Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, headed by His Lordship The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H.Kapadia, Chief Justice of India (as he then was), has explained the impact of the disobedience of the orders of the Court by the officials, who are bound to abide and the role of the higher courts to safeguard the dignity and majesty of the law and also to infuse confidence in the minds of the people in the following manner:- "Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. The Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs..........." 24. It may also be relevant to refer to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders, 196, 211, 551, 560, 562, 566, for the effective disposal of this petition, which are as under:- "a. PSO 196 of Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders defines the responsibility for station administration. It reads as follows: "PSO 196. Responsibility for station administration.- A Station House Officer in charge of a police station is fully responsible for the police administration of his charge. It is his duty to assign to his subordinates their duties and to see that they perform them correctly and to take measures for preservation of the peace and the prevention and detection of crime within the limits of his station." b. PSO 211 of Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders defines the Inspector's Case diary. It enacts as follows: "PSO 211. Inspector's Case diary.- Inspectors shall forward to their immediate superior, with the diary of the day, Case diaries in cases investigated by themselves. They shall send another copy of the Case diary for file in the station in which the case is registered, and retain a copy themselves." c. Chapter XXIX of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders deals with first information to the police officials. PSO 551 contemplates Registry in First Information Report Book. It reads as follows: PSO 551. They shall send another copy of the Case diary for file in the station in which the case is registered, and retain a copy themselves." c. Chapter XXIX of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders deals with first information to the police officials. PSO 551 contemplates Registry in First Information Report Book. It reads as follows: PSO 551. Registry in First Information Report Book.- Information coming under any of the following heads received at a Police Station, shall be registered in the First Information Report Book (Form No.73) which is the book prescribed by Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code: (1) Cognizable cases including those referred to the Police for inquiry by Magistrates; (2) Complaints falling under Regulation IV of 1821; (3) All occurrences which need investigation, such as suicides and accidental death, accidental fires, straying of cattle, etc., only where there is a reason to suspect the commission of cognizable offences; (4) Non-cognizable cases endorsed to the Police for inquiry; (5) Cases under section 107 to 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code after it has been determined to put them before a Magistrate; (6) Offences to be reported to the Central Excise Salt and Customs departments; (7) Reports made to Magistrate with a view to action being taken under sections 144 and 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code." d. PSO 560 deals with instruction regarding first information reports. It reads as follows: PSO 560. Instruction regarding First Information Reports: (1) Cases entered in the First Information Report Book will be given a consecutive number and this number will constitute the crime number for the purpose of the subsequent records. (2) The thumb-impression of the informant will usually be taken only in the case of illiterate persons. (3) In the case of complaints a copy of the First Information Report should be furnished free of charge to the complainant or informant under proper acknowledgement immediately after the complaint is registered." e. Chapter XXX of the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order deals with the Investigation. PSO 564 contemplates about refusal of investigation. It reads as follows: PSO 562. Refusal of investigation (1) The following principles are laid down to guide the exercise of their discretion by Station house officers in the matter of refusing investigation under Section 157(1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. (G.Os.No.332, Judl. 28th Feb. 1906. and 485 Judl. PSO 564 contemplates about refusal of investigation. It reads as follows: PSO 562. Refusal of investigation (1) The following principles are laid down to guide the exercise of their discretion by Station house officers in the matter of refusing investigation under Section 157(1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. (G.Os.No.332, Judl. 28th Feb. 1906. and 485 Judl. 14th March 1911) (2) Grounds for refusal.- Investigation may be properly refused in the following cases.-- (a) Triviality- Trivial offences, such as are contemplated in section 95 of the Indian Penal Code. (b) Civil nature-Cases of petty theft of property less than Rs.10 in value cognizable by a Village Headman under Regulation IV of 1821, provided that the accused person is not an old offender, nor a professional criminal, and that the property does not consist of sheep or goats." f. With regard to the investigation as envisaged under Chapter XXX of Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders, PSO 566 assumes more importance, because it deals with the investigation to be impartial. The proviso to PSO 566(1) reads as follows: "PSO 566. Investigation to be impartial (1) Investigating officers are warned against prematurely committing themselves to any view of the facts for, or against a person. The aim of an investigating officer should be to find out the truth, and to achieve this purpose, it is necessary to preserve an open mind throughout the inquiry." 25. With the heavy heart, this Court would like to place it on record that the contemnor/respondent has not followed the procedures enunciated in the Tamil Nadu Police Standing Orders as enumerated above. 26. Keeping in view of the related facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the respondent/contemnor Mr. Karunakaran, Inspector of Police, E1, Mylapore Police Station, Chennai, is found guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 27. Since the case in C.C.No.2004 of 2013 is pending trial on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, wherein the accused 1 and 2 have been facing the charges under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C., this Court finds that it would be better in the interest of justice, as urged by the learned Public Prosecutor that the contemnor may be admonished with a stern caution to be more diligent in future. 28. Accordingly, the respondent/contemnor is found guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 28. Accordingly, the respondent/contemnor is found guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, for the reasons stated above, the respondent is admonished with a stern caution to be more diligent in future. 29. It is pertinent to note here that due to the latches on the part of the police officials, when the aggrieved party once approaches the court to safeguard his right or claim, at least even at that time, the concerned officials should become vigil and alert and they shall do their functions as prescribed in law or rules or orders. Even then, if such officials are not performing their dutiful functions as required by law, such kind of an recalcitrant attitude, cannot be digested and it shall not be allowed to be encouraged. The case on hand is one such glaring case. 29. Further, this Court finds that, of late, such kind of contempt petitions are on the increasing rate. Therefore, this Court would like to put an end to such trauma being experienced by the unlettered and lettered masses and hence, this Court feels that it may be expedient to issue a direction to all the police stations all over Tamil Nadu, in connection with the registration of First Information Report. 30. Accordingly, the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu is directed to issue directions to all the police stations in Tamil Nadu to register the complaints, which, the Station House Officers may happen to receive, forthwith as envisaged under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., if the Station House Officer is satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. He is also directed to instruct them not to keep any such complaint pending under the guise of enquiry. 31. Further, the learned Public Prosecutor is directed to get a copy of this judgment and send the same to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, with a covering letter, intimating the directions of this Court to enable the Director General of Police to issue directions to all the police stations in Tamil Nadu, as stated above, forthwith. With the above directions, this contempt petition is allowed. No costs.