Tamil Nadu - Tuticorin   

Court raps Deputy Inspector General of Police

MADURAI: The Madras High Court Bench here has criticised the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range for levelling baseless and “highly mischievous” charges against a sub-inspector of police and a head constable attached to the Tiruchendur police station in Tuticorin district.

Allowing two writ petitions filed by the policemen, Justice S. Nagamuthu quashed the charge memorandums issued by the DIG.

He said that it was unreasonable to punish them for the only reason that they investigated a criminal case without obtaining approval from the Superintendent of Police (SP) concerned.

The judge pointed out that the policemen had actually registered the case on the basis of a direction issued by the Tiruchendur Judicial Magistrate.

Thereafter, they investigated the crime and also filed a charge sheet before the lower court which took cognisance of the final report and started the trial proceedings.

Suddenly, the DIG issued charge memorandums to the duo levelling two charges on each of them.

The first charge was that they laid the charge sheet without investigating the case properly. The second charge was that the final report was filed with ulterior motives with the help of court staff and without the approval of the SP.

Finding no substance in the two charges, Mr. Justice Nagamuthu said that it was the bounden duty of policemen to register a case forthwith in accordance with court directions.

“One cannot expect a person to undergo the ordeal of facing the charge for having obeyed the order of the court,” he added.

The judge wondered what offence the policemen could have committed by investigating the case and filing the final report because time and again, the Courts have been insisting upon the police officials to expedite the investigation and to lay final reports without any unnecessary delay.

On the allegation that the policemen had managed to get the final report taken on file by the court by influencing the court staff, the judge said that such allegation reflects the non-application of mind by the DIG.

“Probably, he is under the mistaken impression that taking cognisance is a mechanical act performed by the court staff.”

The judge pointed out that taking cognisance of a final report was a serious judicial act performed by a judicial magistrate under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Magistrates were expected to take cognisance only after perusing the report and being satisfied that it was a fit case to proceed with.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Bank employees stage demonstration
Arrangements in Tiruchendur reviewed
EVMs fed with details
“DMK for people’s welfare”
Court raps Deputy Inspector General of Police
Liquor bottles seized

Copyright © 2009, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu