Prosecution under Section 44 of the District Police Act requires wilful or deliberate violation of duty, misinterpretation of law by the magistrate

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the entire records relating to the impugned complaints in S.T.C.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2018 on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore and quash the same.)

Common Order:

1. The petitions seek to quash three different complaints filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner for not discharging his duty as a Police Officer and executing the Warrants lawfully issued to him.

2. According to the complainant, several cases were pending on his file for a long period of time since the accused were absconding and non bailable Warrants issued against them were not executed by the police. Hence, he directed the petitioner herein who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, to execute the pending Warrants failing which to file a report stating the reasons for not executing the Warrants. It is alleged that the petitioner had violated his duty by not executing the warrants and hence was liable for prosecution under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act.

3. (i) Three separate complaints were filed which are impugned in the above quash petitions. In STC No.1 of 2018 which is impugned in Crl.O.P.No.23585 of 2019, it is alleged that the Warrants against two accused in C.C. No.480 of 2005 were pending execution for a long time. On 14.08.2018 the respondent issued a letter to either execute the Warrant against the accused or file a status report on 03.09.2018. It is alleged that the petitioner neither secured the accused nor filed any status report; that the petitioner hence, disobeyed the order of the Court and failed to act as per the order. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why, action should not be taken against him under Section 21 r/w. 44 of Tamil Nadu District Police Act. On 18.09.2018, the petitioner gave an explanation stating that he had appeared before the respondent on 03.09.2018 and asked the Sub Inspector of Police, one Vishnupriya to file the report. The complainant further states that since the petitioner in his explanation admitted that no report was filed on 03.09.2018 and since he had left the Court without the order of the Court his conduct amounts to dereliction of duty and disrespect to the Court.

(ii) In S.T.C.No.2 of 2018, which is impugned in Crl.O.P.No.23595 of 2019, it is alleged that in PRC No.63 of 2005, a Warrant was pending against one of the accused since 2010 and the respondent had issued a letter on14.08.2018 to secure the accused or file the status report on 03.09.2018. However, on 03.09.2018 neither the accused was secured nor any status report was filed. The respondent had sent a notice on 25.09.2018, calling upon the petitioner to offer his explanation. However, the petitioner did not give his explanation and hence his conduct of not executing the warrants, not filing the status report and not giving any response would amount to dereliction of duty punishable under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act.

(iii) Likewise, in STC No.3 of 2018 which is impugned in Crl.O.P.No.23598 of 2019, it is stated that a Warrant was pending against one of the accused in CC.No.9 of 2007 and on 03.10.2018, a letter was sent to the petitioner to execute the warrant and to secure the said accused or to file a status report on 01.11.2018. Neither the accused was secured nor any status report was filed. Hence, on 16.11.2018 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to give explanation by 01.12.2018. However, he did not give any explanation. Since the petitioner neither executed the Warrant nor responded to the show cause notice, he had violated his duty, punishable under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act. Hence, relying upon the Judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.12478 of 2015 d