Madras High Court

Vinayagam vs The Commissioner Of Police on 11 October, 2022

                                                                                     Crl.OP.No.24555 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED: 11.10.2022

                                                           CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

                                                    Crl.O.P.No.24555 of 2022

               Vinayagam                                                         ... Petitioner
                                                             Vs.


               1.The Commissioner of Police,
                 #32, Commissioner Office Building,
                 Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

               2.The State Rep by its
                 The Inspector of Police,
                 W-32, All Women Police Station,
                 Madipakkam, Chennai 600 117.                                             ... Respondents

               PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
               direct the second respondent not to harass the petitioner in the blanket of enquiry
               in the CSR No.not known/2022.



                                   For Petitioner                  : Mr.L.Infant Dinesh

                                   For Respondents                 : Mr.S.Santhosh
                                                                    Government Advocate(Crl.side)



               1/12


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   Crl.OP.No.24555 of 2022

                                                   ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the second

respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that based on

the complaint given by petitioner's wife one Divyabharathi, the respondent police

harassing the petitioner and under the pretext of enquiry. He further submitted that

the action of the respondent police is in violation of the Articles 19 and 21 of the

Constitution of India. Hence, he filed this petition.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.24555 of 2022

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]

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the

respondent police received a complaint from petitioner's wife one Divyabharathi

with regard to the matrimonial dispute and made enquiry and the same is pending

with the respondent police for further enquiry.

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

learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

appearing for the respondent police.

6.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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.24555 of 2022

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 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, petitioner's wife one Diviyabharathi gave a criminal

complaint against the petitioner alleging some offences.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.24555 of 2022

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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.24555 of 2022

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 register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

(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.

(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.24555 of 2022

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);

(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;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.24555 of 2022

(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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.24555 of 2022

12.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.24555 of 2022

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 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)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.24555 of 2022

and the Consolidated Instructions dated 25.01.2021 issued by the Director General

of Police, Chennai. If the police is not following the above legal principles, it is

inevitable to meet the consequences of violation of law. Further, I hereby direct

the respondent police to conduct enquiry in accordance with law, after issuing

summon to petitioner.

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

11.10.2022