Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 673
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
S. Saravanan - Petitioner
Versus
Paulraj, Inspector, East Police Station - Respondent
Crl.R.C.(MD)No. 66 of 2018
Decided On : 12-02-2018
For the Petitioner:J. Senthilkumaraiah, Advocate.
The discretion of the police to arrest and the guidelines for arrest were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Police Duty - Criminal Revision Case - IPC 294(b), 307, 506(ii) - Sections 166, 166-A, 167, 191, 213, 217, 218, 221, 294(b) - Saravanan filed a private complaint against the Inspector of Police for not taking effective steps to arrest the accused. The court discussed the discretion of the police to arrest, guidelines for arrest, and the role of the investigating officer in deciding whether to effect an arrest.
Fact of the Case:
Saravanan, a practicing advocate, filed a complaint against the Inspector of Police for not taking effective steps to arrest the accused who had attacked him with lethal weapons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Inspector of Police had not violated any duty and dismissed the Criminal Revision Case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Inspector of Police should have taken action to arrest the accused as per Saravanan's complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court discussed the discretion of the police to arrest, guidelines for arrest, and the role of the investigating officer in deciding whether to effect an arrest.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed for being devoid of merits.
1. On the complaint lodged by S.Saravanan, the petitioner herein, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.148 of 2017, on 21.03.2017, under Sections 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC against one Ramesh and two others.
2. It is the case of S.Saravanan that he is a practising advocate in the High Court; that in respect of his own case, he went to Kovilpatti Police Station on 21.03.2017, around 12.20 hours and thereafter, heard sounds of someone breaking the locks of factory in his custody; that when he questioned those persons, they abused him in filthy language and one of them attacked him with a knife, on account of which, he suffered injuries on his left hand. He has named three assailants in his complaint and hence, First Information Report has been registered against them, as stated above. While so, it is the grievance of S.Saravanan that the police are not taking any action to arrest the accused named by him; and that the accused are still at large.
3. S.Saravanan filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, in Cr.M.P.No.4295 of 2017 for the alleged offences under Sections 166, 166-A, 167, 191, 213, 217, 218, 221 and 294(b) IPC against Paulraj, Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Kovilpatti. The learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the sworn statements of S.Saravanan and his two witnesses, namely, M.Velmurugan and S.Karthik and after considering the evidence adduced by S.Saravanan, has dismissed the complaint in Cr.M.P.No.4295 of 2017, on 02.11.2017 by a detailed order, aggrieved by which, Saravanan has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
4. Heard Mr.J.Senthilkumaraiah, learned counsel appearing for S.Saravanan.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that S.Saravanan was attacked indiscriminately with lethal weapons by one Ramesh (A1), Sundarrajan (A2) and Seenivasan (A3), who are the accused in Crime No.148 of 2017. But, however, Paulraj, Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti Police Station, was not taking effective step to arrest them. Therefore, he submitted that the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the private complaint and should have taken cognizance of the offence against Paulraj and issued process to him.
6. To appreciate the grievance of S.Saravanan, it may be relevant to extract the averments in his private complaint in Cr.M.P.No.4295 of 2017, which are as under:-
"7. I submit that Respondent/Accused is well aware that accused Seenivasan and his associates are wanted person and illegally he is helping Ramesh and his associates and he escorted them. The accused Ramesh and his associates Sundarrajan, Seenivasan has political power, money and muscle power in and around the said area.
8. Thereafter, I filed a detailed representation on 20.04.2017 to Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District and copies sent to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Inspector General of Police, Madurai Zone and Director General of Police, Chennai, against Respondent/Accused Mr.Paulraj and Mr.Rajesh, Inspector, West Police Station to take necessary action. Even after receipt of said complaint, Respondent never bothered to take any action against said accused. I apprehend that anything may happen to me and my family at any moment by the Respondent/Accused.
9. The Respondent/Accused planned to arrest me for the purpose of closing the case [Crime No.148/2017] and also cornering me to withdraw the complaint, which is made against him. So, he sent summon to me regarding the 19.04.2017 incidents which is mentioned in the para No.6. He signed summon on 17.05.2017 and the post was dispatched from him on 22.05.2017 at about 10.57 a.m. It contains the information such as I have to appear before him on 23.05.2017 at about 10.00 a.m, but the post was received by my father on 23.05.2017 at about 01.50 p.m. So, I am not able to appear before him. He is purposely created the evidence of non-appearance for that
