Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 801 (MAD)

M. Nagaraj v. Superintendent of Police, Thiruppur

2020-05-22

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

body2020
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the 2nd respondent and its officials not to harass the petitioner and his family members.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to direct the 2nd respondent and its officials not to harass the petitioner and his family members. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent police harassed the petitioner under the guise of enquiry. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submits that the respondents have not harassed the petitioner. He would submit that as per the instructions of the respondents there is no complaint pending against the petitioner as such. However, since the names of the petitioner’s daughter and son in law is not mentioned in the petition, the respondents are unable to ascertain the details of them. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if there is no case against the petitioner, he cannot be harassed. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent police. 6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent police has been harassing him under the guise of an enquiry/investigation and hence, has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 respondent police is directed to serve summons mentioning the CSR number, date of complaint and the name of the complainant c) The minutes of the enquiry shall be recorded in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the police station. d) The police officer shall refrain himself or herself from harassing persons called upon for enquiry/investigation. 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. 11. With the above observations and direction, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.