The Madras High Court had observed that the investigation done by the police officials were satisfactory and was of the view that this neutrality will be maintained during the entire investigation.
“This Court is satisfied with the manner in which the investigation has progressed in this case, and this Court hopes that it continues in the same spirit, and the investigation is completed as expeditiously as possible. The effectiveness of a criminal prosecution can be ensured only when it is completed at the earliest possible time and there is a certainty of punishment for the accused person, if found guilty. Merely discussing about a case from all quarters will not yield the effective results.”
The above observation had made by the Single-judge bench of Madras High Court, comprising of the Justice N. Anand Venkatesh while dealing with the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the CB-CID to effectively conduct the investigation in Crime No.1 of 2021, duly monitored by this Hon'ble Court and for a further direction to submit periodical status report on the progress made in the investigation before this Court and to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible.
Factual Background
The Madras HC had taken suo moto case related to alleged sexual harassment of an IPS cadre woman officer by her senior, a Special DGP, and decided to monitor the investigation into the case itself. The Court criticized the alleged incident and expressed their displeasure at the manner in which the Special DGP allegedly used his contacts and power to prevent the victim officer from filing the suit against him.
Court Reasoning and Judgment
The Court had already restrained Political parties to use the name of accused for their political benefits and disregarded the media trials as it was a sensitive issue and neutrality should be maintained during the investigation in the previous order.
“The Court while passing orders, restrained the political parties and media from indulging in any discussion, touching upon the merits of this case. This Court also restrained them from using or exchanging the names of the victim officer, the accused persons and the witnesses. A representation was made before this Court to the effect that such a protection need not be given to the accused persons and therefore, a request was made to modify the earlier direction and to permit the use or exchange of name of the accused persons”
The Court held that:
“the issue involved is quite sensitive and it requires to be handled with a lot of maturity, and at this stage both the State as well as this Court must maintain neutrality. Ultimately, the whole purpose of this Court monitoring this investigation is to find out the truth behind the alleged incident.”
Case Details
Case: W.P.No.6591 of 2021
Petitioner: Suo Motu Cognizance
Respondent: Government of India & Ors
Quorum: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
