Madras HC defines word ‘harassment’ by police

Chennai: Pointing out that the term “harassment” by itself has a very wide meaning and hence, what could be harassment to a person may not be the same to a police officer, the Madras high court has issued guidelines in order to circumvent such situations.

Justice M.S.Ramesh issued the guidelines while allowing a petition from Pushparajan, which sought a direction to the Inspector of Police, Noolambur police station, Chennai, not to harass him unnecessarily.

The judge said it was the case of the petitioner that the Inspector of Police, Noolambur police station was harassing him under the guise of an enquiry/investigation. An enquiry into a non-cognizable offence or a cognizable offence was the unfettered powers of the investigation officers, so long as the power to investigate/enquire into these offences was legitimately exercised within the frame work of Cr.P.C. Though the Cr.P.C empowers the Magistrate to be a guardian in all the stages of the police investigation, there was no power envisaging him to interfere with the actual investigation or the mode of investigation. It was in this background that numerous petitions complaining of harassment were being reported and filed before this court seeking for directions to refrain the police officials from harassing the persons named in a complaint, the judge added.

The judge said this court, exercising its power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C, normally would not interfere with the investigation conducted by a police officer. Nevertheless, it would also not turn a blind eye to instances of harassment by the police under the guise of investigation was brought to its notice, the judge added.

The judge said it was seen that in some cases, the investigation pending before the police has been stayed by court orders. It was needless to point out that in cases of this nature, the police will not be entitled even to proceed with the investigation and therefore, the petitioner may not have an apprehension of harassment in the hands of police. In the present case on hand, the petitioner has complained of harassment by the police based on a complaint and seeks this court’s intervention by way of direction. “The term “harassment” by itself has a very wide meaning and hence, what could be harassment to the petitioner may not be the same to the police officer. In order to circumvent such situations, the guidelines are issued”, the judge added.

The guidelines were : A) While summoning any persons named in the complaint or any witness to the incident complained of, the police officer shall summon such persons through a written summon under section 160 Cr.P.C, specifying a particular date and time for appearing before them for such an enquiry/investigation. B) The minutes of the enquiry shall be recorded in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the police station. C) The police officer shall refrain, himself or herself from harassing persons called upon for enquiry/investigation. D) The guidelines stipulated for preliminary enquiry by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari’s case shall be strictly adhered to.