Tiruvannamalai SP gets relief from Madras High Court
Deccan Chronicle | DC Correspondent
Published on: September 8, 2015 | Updated on: Invalid date
The court initiated action against the SP. Challenging this, the police officer filed the quash petition
Madras High Court (Photo: DC)
Chennai: The judicial system in the country has been plagued by nagging problems of police officers not obeying court directives by not serving summons, executing warrants, producing documents and consequently resulting in piling up of cases, the Madras high court has observed.
Citing a Supreme Court verdict in Raghuvanth Dev Chand V. State of Maharashtra (2012), which directed all courts to maintain a Warrant Register for recording and keeping track of all warrants, Justice P.N. Prakash said the apex court order had not been implemented by trial courts in the state.
The judge observed this while quashing a prosecution launched by the judicial magistrate, Cheyyar, against the police superintendent, Tiruvannamalai district, for failure to obey summons issued.
Setting aside the complaint against the SP. Justice Prakash said "What the Cheyyar magistrate should have done is, he should have drafted a complaint as a public servant for an offence under Section 175 IPC (omission to produce document or electronic record to public servant by person legally bound to produce it) and should have forwarded it to the chief judicial magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, for taking cognisance and proceeding with the trial.
The judge said from a reading of Section 352 Cr.P.C. it was clear that the magistrate had no power to try the SP for an offence under Section 175 IPC for disobeying and committing contempt of his authority, by not answering to the summons issued.
The matter pertained to a case against one Tailor Vasu in 1995. A non-bailable warrant against the accused had not been executed for 20 years. As a result, the trial court was unable to commit the case to the sessions court. Neither the Cheyyar police nor superintendent of police, Tiruvannamalai, cooperated with the court. Even after several summons, the SP neither appeared in person nor through counsel till April 18. The court initiated action against the SP. Challenging this, the police officer filed the quash petition.