BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Sivakumar - Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai & Others - Respondent
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 13591 of 2022
Decided On : 28-07-2022
Harassment - Criminal Enquiry - Section 304(A) of IPC - Section 154, 41A of Cr.P.C - D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal [AIR (1997) SC 610], Arneshkumar vs. State of Bihar [2015-1-L.W. (Crl.) 318], Lalithakumari vs. State of U.P [AIR 2014 SC 187] - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 154, 41A of Cr.P.C and the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in the cases of D.K.Basu, Arneshkumar, and Lalithakumari. The court emphasized the mandatory registration of FIR for cognizable offences, the necessity for preliminary inquiry, and the limitations on the power of the investigating officer. The court also directed the police to follow the guidelines and consolidated instructions issued by the Director General of Police, Chennai, and to conduct the enquiry without harassing the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sold a car and was later informed by the police about a case registered for an offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. The petitioner sought a direction against the police not to harass him under the guise of enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondent police to follow the legal principles and guidelines provided by the Supreme Court and the Director General of Police, Chennai, and directed the petitioner to cooperate for the enquiry being conducted by the police without harassment.
Issues: Harassment under the guise of enquiry, compliance with legal principles and guidelines by the police.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory registration of FIR for cognizable offences, the necessity for preliminary inquiry, and the limitations on the power of the investigating officer. The court also directed the police to follow the guidelines and consolidated instructions issued by the Director General of Police, Chennai, and to conduct the enquiry without harassing the petitioner.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of with the direction for the respondent police to follow the legal principles and guidelines provided by the Supreme Court and the Director General of Police, Chennai, and for the petitioner to cooperate for the enquiry being conducted by the police without harassment.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to direct the second and third respondent to not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry)
1. This Criminal Original Petition is filed to direct the second and third respondent to not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has sold the TATA sumo Car bearing Reg. No. TN 38 E 3197 to the fourth respondent and the fourth respondent after receiving all the documents had told him that after transferring the ownership he will hand over the copy of the RC book to the petitioner. On 27.06.2022 the petitioner sent a lawyer notice to the fourth respondent calling up on him to inform about the status of name transfer and also to appear before the third respondent. When he appeared before the third respondent they informed the petitioner that on 07.12.2021 a case has been registered in crime No.262 of 2021 for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC, under these circumstances the respondent police harassed the petitioner, hence the present petition came to be filed.
3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that TATA sumo Car bearing Reg. No. TN 38 E 3197 involved in a road accident for which a case has been registered in crime No.262 of 2021 for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and as on date the vehicle stands in the name of the petitioner,hence the petitioner was called for enquiry, but he is evading enquiry.
4. In this original petition, the petitioner seeks a direction of this Court against the respondent police not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry based on the complaint received by the respondent police.
5. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C envisages three circumstances, under which, inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (1) to give effect to an order under the Code, (2) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and (3) to otherwise secure ends of justice. The rule of inherent power has its source in the maxim “Quando lex aliquid alique, concedit conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest”” it means that when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which the thing itself cannot exist.
6. The power of investigation officer is statutory one. The power to investigate into the cognizable offence is to be legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provision of Chapter XII of the Code. There is no unlimited discretion to act according to one's own choice. The power to investigate must be exercised strictly on the condition of which that power is granted by the Code itself. Further, the investigation officer is empowered to collect evidence/material during investigation and arrive at a conclusion independently. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the functioning of an Investigating Agency. It may do so only in exceptional circumstances.
7. In Lalithakumari vs. State of U.P [AIR 2014 SC 187], the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized law and gave following directions with regard to registration of F.I.R. For better appreciation, it is reproduced hereunder:-
(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
(
Mandatory registration of FIR for cognizable offences, limitations on the power of the investigating officer, and the necessity for preliminary inquiry.
Proper procedures during police enquiry/investigation are essential to prevent harassment, including written summons, recording of enquiry minutes, and adherence to Supreme Court guidelines.
The Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked to issue guidelines to prevent harassment by the police during enquiries.
Prevention of harassment by police during enquiry and adherence to guidelines for preliminary enquiry or registration of FIR by the Supreme Court.
The legitimate exercise of powers by investigation officers within the framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the court's authority to address instances of harassment during police investiga....
Prevention of harassment during police investigation and the issuance of specific guidelines to ensure proper procedures and adherence to Supreme Court guidelines.
The court clarified the limitations on police conduct during enquiries to protect petitioner rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.