Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court has issued a set of guidelines to curb police harassment during investigations, emphasizing that while law enforcement agencies have the authority to conduct inquiries, such powers must be exercised within legal boundaries.

A petition was filed by Prasanna Sankaranarayanan, who sought relief from alleged police harassment under the guise of an inquiry. The bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed that multiple complaints regarding police misconduct had been reported, prompting the need for judicial intervention.

Court underscored that investigative officers have unfettered authority to probe both cognizable and non-cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. However, it also reiterated that such powers must be wielded within the framework of Chapter XIII of the statute and should not result in undue harassment.

"An enquiry into a non cognizable offence or a cognizable offence is the unfettered powers of the Investigation Officers so long as the power to investigate/enquiry into these offences are legitimately exercised within the frame work of Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Though the Sanhita empowers the Magistrate to be a guardian in all the stages of the police investigation, there is no power envisaging him to interfere with the actual investigation or the mode of investigation. It is in this background that numerous petitions complaining of harassment are being reported and filed before this Court seeking for directions to refrain the police officials from harassing the persons named in a complaint," court observed. 

To address such concerns, court laid down specific guidelines for police personnel: 

1. Any person named in a complaint or a witness must be summoned through a written notice under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, specifying a clear date and time for their appearance.

2. The proceedings of the inquiry must be documented in the police station's general diary, station diary, or daily diary.

3. Investigating officers must ensure that individuals called for inquiry are not subjected to undue harassment.

4. The Supreme Court's guidelines in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) regarding preliminary inquiry and FIR registration must be strictly followed.

Justice Ilanthiraiyan emphasized that while the judiciary generally refrains from interfering with police investigations, it will not hesitate to act against instances of harassment. He acknowledged the subjective nature of harassment, noting that what a petitioner perceives as harassment may not be viewed the same way by the police.

With these observations, the court disposed of the petition.

Case Title: Prasanna Sankaranarayanan Vs. The State