Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12199
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Muthumari M – Appellant
Versus
The Director General of Poli – Respondent
A petitioner must cooperate with an ongoing investigation, and the law enforcement should adhere to Supreme Court guidelines regarding arrest procedures.
Headnote:
Writ - Mandamus - Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC - The court directed adherence to Supreme Court guidelines regarding arrest and investigation while emphasizing cooperation with the investigation by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused of certain IPC offences, sought a writ of mandamus directing the fifth respondent to follow Supreme Court guidelines in a related case, alleging the investigation was not conducted properly.
Issues: Whether the writ petition for mandamus is maintainable under the current investigation circumstances and if the petitioner can dictate the actions of the investigation team.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that while a petitioner may seek direction, they must also comply with the investigation process, aligning with established legal standards from prior Supreme Court rulings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for cooperation in the investigation and adherence to Supreme Court guidelines.
ORDER
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had filed this petition for Writ of Mandamus, seeking direction against the fifth Respondent to strictly adhere to the judgment and guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of “ Arnesh Kumar -versus- State of Bihar [2014] 8 S.C.R 128 in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014 dated 02.07.2014, in respect of the fifth Respondent Crime No.24 of 2024 dated 21.01.2024.
2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in Crime No.24 of 2024 dated 21.01.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that prior to the registration of FIR also, the Petitioner co-operated with the enquiry. Now, the Writ Petition had been filed seeking direction to follow the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Arnesh Kumar -versus- State of Bihar [2014] 8 S.C.R 128 in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014 dated 02.07.2014.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) objects to the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, stating that the Petitioner as an accused cannot dictate the investigation team by filing such Writ Petition. He would also submit that this Writ Petition is not maintainable. Since the Investigation Officer had issued summons, the Petitioner instead of appearing before the Investigation Officer, had approached this Court. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) seeks to dismiss this Writ Petition.
4. In the light of the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar -versus- State of Bihar [2014] 8 S.C.R 128 in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014 dated 02.07.2014, the Petitioner is directed to co-operate with the investigation and the Respondent Police are directed to follow the guidelines in the case of Arnesh Kumar stated supra.
5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
29.02.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Nsr TO:
1.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Alagar Kovil Road, Madurai City.
3.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City.
5.The Inspector of Police (Crime), Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City.
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP , J.
Nsr Order made in W.P.(MD)No.4619 of 2024 Dated:
29.02.2024
