11 Feb 2022 7:45 AM GMT
In a contempt petition filed against a Police Inspector alleging willful disobedience of the court order, Madras High Court observed that the police department is running with 90 per cent corruptive officers as on date.Justice P. Velmurugan remarked that the Department is also plagued by police officials not having the required expertise to go forth with an investigation. According to the...
In a contempt petition filed against a Police Inspector alleging willful disobedience of the court order, Madras High Court observed that the police department is running with 90 per cent corruptive officers as on date.
Justice P. Velmurugan remarked that the Department is also plagued by police officials not having the required expertise to go forth with an investigation. According to the judge, only 10 per cent of the officers are 'honest and abled' but they alone cannot do all the investigation.
"...Though this Court finds that the capacity of the investigating officer is not up to the mark, and within her capacity she has investigated the case, the incapacity of the investigation officer cannot be treated as wilfully disobeying of the order of this Court. Unfortunately, as on date, the police department is running with 90% of the corruptive officers as well 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, the court further observed that it is the right time to sensitise police officials, find out and eradicate corrupt officers and give adequate training to officers who are not corrupt but lacking in investigational skills.
The High Court also added that the aggrieved petitioner has the liberty to initiate action against the Inspector for her incapacity and to work out a remedy before the Judicial Magistrate.
The court also noted that,
"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 contempt petition was filed by a power of attorney holder who had previously filed a complaint for cheating, forgery and criminal intimidation in relation to a sale deed.
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.
Subsequently, the High Court directed police to serve the RCS notice and granted the petitioner liberty to file protest petition. The petitioner/ power of attorney holder filed a protest petition before the Tiruchengode Judicial Magistrate. The directions given by the Magistrate was challenged in High Court via a criminal revision petition by the de facto complainant.
High Court directed the police to conduct a fresh investigation to be completed in three months. Once again, the respondent police closed the case as 'mistake of fact', served the RCS notice and filed the final report before the Magistrate. Therefore, a contempt petition was filed by the de facto complainant alleging willful disobeying of the previous High Court order in the criminal revision petition.
The petitioners contended that the police has not conducted the investigation in a fair manner. Similarly, the respondent Inspector argued that after a fresh examination of witnesses including the attestors of the sale deed, the police reached a conclusion that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and there is no prima facie offence made out, which is why the case was closed as a 'mistake of fact'.
The court observed as follows after hearing both sides:
"Based on the statement of the list of witnesses, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and therefore, the respondent police has closed the criminal case ...On a careful perusal of the records, this Court does not find that the respondent police wilfully disobey the order of this Court. Since then respondent police, after completion of the 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."
Case Title: S. Vasanthi v. M. Baggyalakshmi, Inspector of Police
Case No: Cont P No.1330 of 2021 in Crl.R.C.No.112 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
Click Here To Read/ Download Order