Madras High Court Pulls Up Police For Non-Responsive Conduct; Says Exaggerated & Stereotyped Allegations Are Commonplace Nowadays

While granting regular/ anticipatory bail to various persons accused in an incident of ransacking the police station, the Madras High Court took judicial notice of the fact that most of the criminal complaints in the State are being registered with exaggerated versions. It noted that almost every complaint in the State is registered with the offence under Section 506(ii) [Criminal Intimidation] IPC, in order to make the case non-bailable.

"This Court is seeing stereo-typed allegations which are made purposely to make out an offence as non-bailable, and this culture is prevailing commonly. Likewise, the Public Properties (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act is also invoked, as if the office is ransacked, house is ransacked, etc," Justice B. Pugalendhi noted.

He suggested that in an era where everyone has a smartphone with an in-built camera, investigating officers should keep photographs and videography depicting the nature of damage so that the Court can find out the actual damage caused in a particular case.

Further, depreciating the non-responsive conduct of the investigating officers shown in the instant case, the Court listed the penal offences that can be invoked against them. It remarked that without the help of the investigation agency, the real facts cannot be ascertained and the Courts cannot make a just decision. It observed,

"When such responsibility is cast upon the investigation agency, they should act accordingly. But if the agency itself acts in a careless and negligent manner, ultimately, it would cause great injustice to the common citizen."

The Court thus requested the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai, and the Director-General of Police, Chennai, to look into this episode and give necessary instructions to the officials.

Background

The Court was hearing a batch of bail applications arising from the alleged incident of a mob attacking and ransacking a Police Station resulting in damage to the station and escaping of an accused, one Senthil, from the custody. A case was registered against some 49 named and unknown accused persons under Sections 147, 452, 294(b), 186, 224, 225, 285, 353, 506(ii), 149, 109 IPC and Section 3(1) of the Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992.

In a clutch of connected matters, the petitioners before the Court were either arrested by the Respondent-Police or were apprehending arrest in the said crime.

The prosecution's case was that a mob led by the petitioners and others formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the police station and challenged the police asking the reason to keep Senthil at the station. After that, the mob abused the police in filthy language, demanding Senthil's release. After that, the petitioners damaged the properties and vehicles in the police station to the tune of Rs.5000/- and stage-managed to commit suicide by fire. Amidst the commotion, the mob took Senthil from the custody of the police.

Advocate A. Arunprasad, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners are innocent and the case has been foisted against them. Some of the petitioners took a plea that the agitation was conducted peacefully as against the unlawful arrest of Senthil, due to which the present case was foisted against them. Some of the petitioners took a plea that they are in no way connected with the occurrence. However, since they happen to be the relative of the accused–Senthil or the audience to the occurrence, they have been implicated as accused in this case.

Findings

Taking notes of the facts and circumstances on record, the Court observed that an omnibus allegation has been charged with no specific overt-act being made out against any of the accused persons. It remarked that though it was alleged that the properties in the police station to the tune of Rs.5000/- was damaged, the materials used for causing such damage were not mentioned and not recovered. Moreover, from the CD file, the Court found a photograph showing a single-window glass break and nothing more than that.

The Court noted that a police station is a public place where the citizens can lodge a complain and thus a person's mere presence in the police station at the time of occurrence itself would not make out a case against that individual.

Referring to Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and Others (2021), the Court emphasized on the mandatory installation of CCTV cameras in the police stations. It directed the respondent-police to place the photograph/videography before the Court, to ascertain the real offence and its gravity.

However, neither the investigation officer was present nor the photographs/videography were produced before the Court. Therefore, the Court directed the learned Government Advocate to request the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned to appear before the virtual hearing. However, despite several reminders, he did not appear, and the Government Advocate expressed his helplessness. In this regard, the Court noted,

"When this Court suggested the appearance of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, through video conference, they also fail to appear. This attitude of the respondent police is shocking, and it has to be deprecated. Until and otherwise, the respondent police place the correct fact before the Court, it would be difficult for the Court to take a just decision."

The Court observed that despite the charges being serious, neither proper instructions were given to the Law Officer nor the officials were present in the Court to assist the Law Officer. Therefore, unable to ascertain the truth, the Court condemned the conduct of the respondent police, being a public servant, in not responding either to the Government Advocate or to the Court, who are also public servants.

It read Section 166 IPC as per which, if a public servant knowingly disobeys any direction of the law with intent to cause injury to any person is liable to be prosecuted. The Court remarked,

"By not responding to the Court and/or by not giving proper instructions, it prima facie appears that the respondent police attempted to cause injury to the personal liberty of the petitioners. The respondent police did not appear before this Court despite the directions of the Government Advocate, a public servant, for which they can be prosecuted under Section 174 IPC [Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant]."

The Court went on to remind the Police of the penal provisions that can be invoked for such conduct: (a)Section 179 IPC [Refusing to answer public servant authorized to question]; (b) Section 187 IPC [Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to assist]; (c) Section 175 IPC [Omission to produce a document or electronic record to public servant by person, legally bound to produce it] ; and (d) Section 186 IPC [Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions].

The Court noted that investigation is the prerogative of the investigation agency, and in fact, even the Courts are not interfering with the investigation. The sole object of the investigation is to find out the truth and place it before the Court of law for necessary prosecution. It remarked,

"The process of finding out the truth must be fair and impartial. The Courts can take a decision only on the materials placed by either side before it and therefore, it is the duty of all concerned to place the correct facts before the Court."

Case Title: Prabhu & Anr v. State

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order