The Madras High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice P. Velmurugan while dismissing a Contempt Petition filed against a Police Inspector alleging willful disobedience of the court order remarked,"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." (S. Vasanthi v. M. Baggyalakshmi, Inspector of Police)
Facts of the case
In the present case the Police booked the accused for offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506(ii) IPC. The investigation was completed, the case was closed as 'mistake of fact', and the referred charge sheet ( RCS) was filed before the judicial magistrate. However, the RCS notice was not served to the de facto complainant.
Following that, the High Court ordered the RCS notice to be served by the police and granted the petitioner the right to file a protest petition. A protest petition was filed before the Tiruchengode Judicial Magistrate by the petitioner/power of attorney holder. The de facto complainant challenged the Magistrate's orders in High Court through a criminal revision petition.
The police were ordered by the High Court to conduct a fresh inquiry within three months. The respondent police concluded the case as a "mistake of fact" served the RCS notice, and filed the final report before the Magistrate once more. As a result, the de facto complainant filed a contempt petition for wilful disobedience of the earlier High Court order in the criminal revision petition.
Contention of the Parties
The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner 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. Therefore, the respondent police has disobeyed the order of this Court.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent police has conducted fresh investigation, as directed by this Court. After the completion of investigation, the respondent police found 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 and also filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate and she has also tendered her unconditional apology for any wrong doing on her part. Therefore, she has not disobeyed the order of this Court.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench at the very outset observed that reading of the materials, it was 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 bench taking note of the same noted, "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. Though this Court finds that the capacity of the investigating officer is not upto the mark and within her capacity she has investigated the case, the incapacity of the investigation officer cannot be treated as wilfully disobey the order of this Court.
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. It is relevant to state that on the date of preferring original complaint the alleged executor of the sale deed was very much alive, if the respondent police immediately examined the said Kamalam, the entire truth would have come out. Whereas till the death of the said Kamalam, the respondent police did not examine her."
The bench closing the Contempt petition remarked, "In view of the above, this Court finds that there is no wilful disobedience by the respondent police. Hence, this Contempt Petition is closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take action against the respondent police for her incapacity, in the manner known to law and also work out her remedy before the Judicial Magistrate, by way of filing the protest petition and proceed with the case further in accordance with law."
Picture Source :
