SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 1068

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
S. Krishna Kumar
Versus
The Home Secretary Chennai & Others
W.P.No.28587 of 2011
Decided On : 28-02-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R1 to R7, Mr. S. Thanka Sivan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. R. Ravichandran, Addl. Govt. Pleader, R8, Mr. M. Easan, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the police have no jurisdiction to interfere with civil disputes and can only proceed with investigation if a criminal offence is disclosed in the complaint.

Headnote:

Prohibition - Civil Dispute - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 157 - The court discussed the procedure for investigation of criminal offences under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that the police have no jurisdiction to interfere with civil disputes and can only register a case and proceed with investigation if any criminal offence is disclosed in the complaint.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a partner of a garment manufacturing business, sought a writ of Prohibition to restrain respondents from harassing the petitioner regarding a civil dispute. The petitioner claimed that the respondents called the petitioner to the police station without registering any case or issuing a written notice for investigation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complaint filed by a respondent did not disclose any offence under the Indian Penal Code and was purely a claim for recovery of money, which should be addressed through a civil suit. The court criticized the respondents for interfering in a civil dispute and restrained them from proceeding with the complaint.

Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the police in interfering with civil disputes, the validity of the complaint filed by a respondent, and the actions of the respondents in calling the petitioner to the police station.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the police have no jurisdiction to interfere with civil disputes and can only proceed with investigation if a criminal offence is disclosed in the complaint. The court also highlighted that the remedy for a claim for recovery of money is through a civil suit.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and respondents were restrained from proceeding with the complaint. Additionally, other respondents were directed to inquire into the conduct of the involved parties and inform the court about the action taken within one month.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Prohibition, restraining respondent nos. 5 & 6 from harassing the petitioner, regarding civil dispute between the parties.

2. The petitioner is a partner of M/s.Current Trends, carrying on business of manufacturing of readymade garments and is exporting it to various countries throughout the world. The petitioner is in business since 1995.

3. The case of the petitioner is that till March 2010, there was no default on the part of petitioner to meet the liabilities of the suppliers, employees, contractors etc, but due to global recession and other restrictions imposed, the business of petitioner suffered heavily. The petitioner is also having current account with the State Bank of India with Over Draft facility for over Rs.27,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Crores).

4. The petitioner was called by the Central Crime Branch, as well as Anuppparpalayam Police Station. On the apprehension of arrest, the petitioner approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. On notice, it was stated by respondents that no case has been registered against the petitioner. Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition was disposed of by this Court.

5. The case of the petitioner is that respondent nos. 5 & 6, without registering any case, called the petitioner to come to the Police Station, without issuing any notice in writing for investigation.

6. Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, lays down procedure for investigation of criminal offences, which reads as under:

"157 (1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may by general order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate circumstances of the case, and, if necessary to take measures for the discovery of the offender:

Provided that-

(a) When information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the office in-charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;

(b) If it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is sufficient ground for entering off an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.

(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements to that sub-section, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the information, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case of cause it to be investigated."

7. The Code of Criminal Procedure further provides procedures how witness is to be called, therefore, in absence of registration of case or by giving notice in writing, the Police has no jurisdiction to call a citizen to the Police Station.

8. Though no counter has been filed by respondent nos.1 to 7, R.S.Jegannathan / 8th respondent got himself impleaded in this writ petition and has filed a counter, admitting therein that it was on his complaint, that the petitioner was called to Police Station.

9. The complaint, as translated, filed by the respondent no.8, reads as under:

"Translation of the Complaint Copy

Tirupur

Date:18-11-2011

From

R.S.Jeganathan, (Age 44)

S/o.R.Subramaniam,

Sri Udhayam Clothing,

24/3A, Amarjyothi Bhuvaneswari Nagar East,

Periyandipalayam,

Tiruppur

To














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top