The Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice P. Velmurugan in the case of S. Vassanthi v. M.Baggiyalakshmi, Inspector of Police has embarked that the modus operandi of Police system should be sensetized as only few Police Officers are honest and it is not feasible for them to manage the affairs of whole State of Madras .
The Bench observed that “Unfortunately, as on date, the police department is running with 90% of the corruptive officers as well as the officers not having adequate capacity to do the investigation and only 10% of the officers are honest and abled officers. The 10% of officials alone cannot do all the investigation.”
Background of the Case
In this case, the petitioner is the de-facto complainant. The respondent is the Investigating Officer. The petitioner gave a complaint before the Respondent , against one Natesan and Rajavelu. On the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, the respondent police registered a case under few sections of IPC. After completing the investigation, the respondent police closed the case as 'Mistake of Fact' on 10.02.2014 and did not serve RCS notice to the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the Respondent’s work, Petitioner filed protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the arguments and considering the materials available on record, has given directions to the Respondent to re-investigate the case. Subsequently, the present respondent, who is an Investigating Officer, took up the investigation and completed the same. After completion of investigation, the respondent police closed the case as 'mistake of fact' and served RCS notice on the same day and also filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate.
Therefore the petitioner has filed the present Contempt Petition that the respondent wilfully disobeys the order of this dated 16.03.2021 in Crl.R.C.No.112 of 2021, when notice was served to the respondent.
Submission of the Petitioner
The Counsel on the behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that this Court has specifically directed the respondent police to conduct fresh investigation in accordance with law, despite the respondent has not conducted the investigation in a fair manner.
Submission of the Respondent
The Counsel on the behalf of the Respondent has submitted that the respondent police has conducted fresh investigation, as directed by this Court and during the investigation, 15 witnesses were examined. The petitioner/de-facto complainant was examined as L.W.1 and the sister-in-law of the petitioner was also examined. After the completion of investigation, the respondent police finds that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and there is no prima facie offence made out and she has conducted the investigation in a fair manner and therefore, the Investigating Officer closed the case as mistake of fact and served RCS notice to the petitioner.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court heard both the parties and perused the materials placed before this Court. The Court held that it is seen that the respondent police conducted fresh investigation, as per the direction of this Court and during the course of investigation, the petitioner was examined as L.W.1 and recorded her statement.
The court further held that on a careful perusal of the records, this Court does not find that the respondent police wilfully disobey the order of this Court. Since the respondent police, after completion of investigation, has filed charge sheet before the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court, the petitioner can file protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate and proceed with the case in accordance with law.
The Court also made remarks on the working procedure of Police that this Court finds that the capacity of the investigating officer is not upto the mark. Unfortunately, as on date, the police department is running with 90% of the corruptive officers as well as the officers not having adequate capacity to do the investigation and only 10% of the officers are honest and abled officers. The 10% of officials alone cannot do all the investigation. Therefore, it is right time to sensitize the officials and find out to eradicate corruptive officers and give adequate training to the officers those who are not corruptive but they are incapacity to do investigation.
Considering all the facts and circumstances, the Court closed the Contempt Petition and expounded that there is no wilful disobedience by the respondent police. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take action against the respondent police for her incapacity, in the manner known to law and proceed with the case further in accordance with law
Case Details
Case: - Cont P No.1330 of 2021
Petitioner: - S.Vasanthi
Respondent: - M.Baggiyalakshmi Inspector of Police
Counsel for Petitioner: - Mr.R.Singaravelan
Counsel for Respondent: - : Mr.S.Sugendran
Judge: Justice P. Velmurugan
Picture Source : https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/indiatoday/images/story/202009/cover_pic_6_1200x768.jpeg?1vJXVlbHWXYU4wxJOML_a7L1IMWk3.vm&size=770:433
