Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1696
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
S. Ramesh - Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, Police Complaints Authority for Puducherry Union territory, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 21587 of 2019
Decided On : 30-07-2019
For the Petitioner:P.R. Thiruneelakandan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, Public Prosecutor (Puducherry).
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 156 - Constitution of India - Article 226 – jurisdiction - register an FIR - Police Complainants Authority - submitted a petition along with all documents - duly forwarding the evidence collected - Hence, in these circumstances, we direct the Director General of Police, Pondicherry, to order for a fresh investigation by deputing an Inspector of Police who has not already dealt with this matter and appropriately take a decision in this matter as per law and, that too, adhering to the well-known case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2013 (6) CTC 353) of the Honble Apex Court in the light of the documents and report compliance within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order – Held, Police Complainants Authority owes its existence to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh case and the consequent Government Order passed by the Government of Puducherry. It can act only within the four corners of the authority vested in it. In the considered view of this Court, the power to give a direction to register an FIR or to transfer investigation or to complete the investigation within a particular period or to alter the offence or to direct further investigation or to file a further report, are all matters falling within the jurisdiction of a competent Court, as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. These powers can never be exercised by the Police Complainants Authority since by exercising such a power, it exceeds its authority and jurisdiction and starts acting like an alternate Court of law. If this goes unchecked, there is a possibility where there can be a clash between the direction given by a Court and a direction given by a Police Complainants Authority. This will lead to unnecessary complications. This Court went into this issue since this Court found a series of directions given by the Police Complaints Authority, Puducherry for registration of FIR, for transfer of investigation, for further investigation etc., and based on those directions, petitions are filed before this Court seeking for implementation of the directions - Honble Supreme Court has categorically said that the State-level Complainants Authority would take cognizance of only allegations of serious misconduct by the Police personnel and recommend for taking departmental action and/or criminal action against the delinquent Police Officer. This recommendation is binding on the authority concerned - important issue that needs to be addressed by this Court is as to whether this Police Complaints Authority can issue directions to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., etc. It is to be borne in mind that such directions are regularly issued by the Police Complaints Authority in Puducherry, where the disputes are between private parties and one of the private party files a complaint before the Police against another private party. It must also be borne in mind that the Complaints are not against any Police Officer, as contemplated by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh and Others, referred supra - Petition disposed of
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to comply with orders of the Police Complaints Authority dated 22.05.2019, in Complaint No.17/PCA/2019 and take action on the petitioner's complaint dated 10.11.2018 submitted before Inspector of Police, Puducherry within a time frame.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent Police to comply with the orders of the Police Complaints Authority dated 22.05.2019, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. The petitioner had given a complaint before the respondent Police alleging land grabbing by the accused persons. Inspite of the receipt of the complaint, no action was taken by the respondent Police. The petitioner therefore approached the Police Complaints Authority, Puducherry on 07.02.2019, and submitted a petition along with all documents. The Police Complaints Authority by an order dated 22.05.2019, gave the following direction.
10. Hence, in these circumstances, we direct the Director General of Police, Pondicherry, to order for a fresh investigation by deputing an Inspector of Police who has not already dealt with this matter and appropriately take a decision in this matter as per law and, that too, adhering to the well-known case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2013 (6) CTC 353) of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the light of the documents and report compliance within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order.
3. Inspite of the directions given by the Police Complaints Authority, since the respondent Police did not act upon the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Police Complaints Authority in Puducherry Union Territory was constituted pursuant to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh case. The powers and functions of the Police Complaints Authority has been clearly specified by the Government of Puducherry in G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 09.12.2016 and updated on 06.01.2017. This Government Order had authorised the Police Complaints Authority to enquire into the petitions filed before it and give appropriate directions to the Police. The respondent Police are duty bound to comply with the directions given by the Police Complaints Authority and it is binding in nature.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent Police submitted that in the present case, pursuant to the directions given by the Police Complaints Authority, an enquiry was conducted and the dispute was found to be civil in nature and therefore the complaint has been closed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor raised a larger issue in this case. He submitted that the Police Complaints Authority which was constituted pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh case can only deal with allegations of serious misconduct by the Police personnel and recommend for departmental action and/or criminal action against the delinquent Police Officer. He further submitted that the Government order was passed by the Government of Puducherry in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh case.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Police Complaints Authority cannot give any directions for registration of FIR, further investigation etc., in disputes involving two private parties, and such powers are vested only with a Court under Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the direction that was issued by the Police Complaints Authority in the present case is beyond its power and jurisdiction.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the said submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the Police Complaints Authority was formed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order to ensure that a super
