Madras High Court

Sutha vs The Superintendent Of Police on 22 May, 2022

                                                                    Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10094 of 2022

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                      Reserved on                 15.06.2022
                                      Delivered on                  24.06.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

                                            Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10094 of 2022

                     1.Sutha
                     2.Murugaiah Pandian
                     3.Kalayanasundaram
                     4.Rajeswaran
                     5..Sudalaikannan
                                                                                  ...Petitioners

                                                           Vs.

                     1.The Superintendent of Police,
                       Tirunelveli District.

                     2.The Inspector of Police,
                       Kalakkadu Police Station,
                       Tirunelveli.                                         ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
                     praying to direct the second respondent police not to harass the
                     petitioners in Cr.No.122 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent
                     police.




                     1/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                             Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10094 of 2022

                                        For Petitioners     : Mr.T.A.Ebinezer

                                        For Respondents : Mr.A.Albert James
                                                     Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

                                                             ORDER

This criminal original petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent,

Inspector of Police, Kalakkadu Police Station, Tirunelveli District not to

harass the petitioners in Cr.No.122 of 2022 on the file of the second

respondent police.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that

one Selvi W/o Murugan gave a complaint alleging that her husband was

murdered on 22.05.2022 on the motive of Panchayat Election, by four

identifiable accused. Based on the complaint, an FIR in Crime No.

122/2022 is registered by the second respondent police. Since the first

accused, by name, Suresh is the brother of the husband of the first

petitioner, the husband of the first petitioner was added as 7 th accused.

Since 7th accused is absconding, the second respondent police is

harassing the petitioners, who are wife, wife's father, father-in-law and

two brother-in-laws asking whereabout of the 7th accused. The action of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10094 of 2022

the first respondent is in violation of the Articles 19 and 21 of the

Constitution of India. Hence, they filed this petition.

3.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the

petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions:-

(i) Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another (2015-1-L.W.(Crl.) 318),

(ii) L.N.Nithyanantham vs. the State and others (Crl.O.P(MD)No.1776 of 2021,

(iii) Dorand and others vs. the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil and other another [2016(2)CTC 286:

                                  (2016)2 MLJ CRL 437],
                                        (iv) Shanmugavadivel and others          vs.    The

Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni and another [2015-2-L.W.(Crl.) 627],

(v) Jagdish Shrivastav vs. the State of Maharashtra and another [S.L.P (Crl.)No.1758 of 2022] and

(vi) Abhyanand Sharma @ Tinku Sharma vs. State of Bihar and another [W.P.(Crl)No.420 of 2021]

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10094 of 2022

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent police submitted that the second respondent police received a

complaint dated 22.05.2022 from one Selvi and made enquiry and the

same is pending with him for further enquiry.

5.I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made

by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police.

6.In this original petition, the petitioners seek a direction of this

Court against the respondent police not to harass them under the guise of

enquiry based on the complaint received by the respondent police.

7.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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10094 of 2022

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.

8.In the instant case, one Selvi gave criminal complaint alleging

her husband Murugan was murdered.

9.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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10094 of 2022

10. 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.

(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed.

Action must be taken against erring officers who do not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10094 of 2022

(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are : (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10094 of 2022

(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

11.Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arneshkumar vs. State of

Bihar and another [2015-1-L.W. (Crl.) 318] has directed the police

officer to follow up the provisions of 41A Cr.P.C and do not arrest the

accused unnecessarily and gave the following directions:-

(1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;

(2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)

(ii);

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10094 of 2022

(3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

(4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

(6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

(7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10094 of 2022

(8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

12.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to the

knowledge of this Court to the consolidated instructions given to the

police officer by the Director General of Police, Chennai in Rc.No.

521017/Crime 3(2)/2020 dated 25.01.2021.

13.On perusal of the consolidated instructions, it is seen that the

Director General of Police, Chennai gave instructions to all the police

based on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of

D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal [AIR (1997) SC 610] and

Arneshkumar vs State of Bihar (supra) and also referred the order of

this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.12665 and 12666 of 2020 with regard to

treating the common man who approached the police station and

handling the complaint given by the aggrieved person and the procedure

to be followed in the arrest of accused as per Section 41(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10094 of 2022

14.This Court, by its order dated 01.02.2016 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.

1727 of 2016 considered the similar prayer for the direction. The learned

Judge of this Court in this case, observed the Code of Criminal Procedure

“nowhere contemplates the remedy of title not to harass”. For better

appreciation, para 6 of the order is extracted hereunder:-

“6.When someone lodges a complaint, the bonafides of which is doubted by the Police Officer, he may choose to make a preliminary enquiry. This happens mostly in cheating cases, because, experience shows that, people frequently rush to the police for help even in purely civil and commercial transaction. If Police do not register an FIR immediately, the complaint rushes to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for a direction to the register an FIR. When a direction to enquire is issued by this Court on the complainant's petition, the Police perforce will have to call the adverse party for enquiry. Immediately, the adverse party rushes to this Court with a? Not to Harass? Petition. If a? Not to Harass? order is passed, that is used as a shield by the adverse party to avoid appearance for police enquiry. On one hand, this Court directs Police to conduct an enquiry on the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10094 of 2022

complaint of a person and in the same breath, if a? Not to harass? order is passed, at the instance of the adverse party, the Police will only be in a quandary.”

15.In view of the above legal and factual position, I hereby direct

the respondent police to follow the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Arneshkumar (supra) with regard to handling the

complaint and follow the guidelines stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of D.K.Basu (supra) and the Consolidated Instructions dated

25.01.2021 issued by the Director General of Police, Chennai. If the

police is not followed the above legal principles, it is inevitable to meet

the consequences of violation of law.

16.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is

disposed of. No costs.

24.06.2022

Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order skn To