69th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra65168280812197 Tamil Nadu2024611313157 Delhi173877846398 Gujarat1635692321007 Rajasthan83654855184 Madhya Pradesh78914444343 Uttar Pradesh77014651213 West Bengal48131775302 Andhra Pradesh3461228960 Bihar3359120915 Karnataka292299749 Telangana2499141277 Jammu and Kashmir234190828 Punjab2197194942 Odisha17239779 Haryana172194019 Kerala120957510 Assam9361044 Uttarakhand493794 Jharkhand4621914 Chhatisgarh4471021 Chandigarh2891994 Tripura2711720 Himachal Pradesh223634 Goa70420 Manipur6060 Puducherry57230 Nagaland3600 Meghalaya27121 Arunachal Pradesh310 Mizoram110 Sikkim100
Nation Current Affairs 14 Jul 2019 Madras high court de ...

Madras high court deprecates practice of accused threatening cops

Published Jul 14, 2019, 3:35 am IST
Updated Jul 14, 2019, 3:35 am IST
The judge said undoubtedly the police officials were working under stress.
Madras high court
 Madras high court

Chennai: The Madras high court has said the recent trend prevailing across the state of Tamil Nadu is that whenever a criminal case is registered by the competent police officer, the accused persons  or some of their relatives are attempting to threaten the police officials by stating that they will prefer a complaint against such police officials before the higher officials or they will file writ petitions seeking directions to the authorities competent to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings against the police officials.

Justice S.M.Subramaniam further said such an action by the persons against whom criminal complaints are registered cannot be encouraged by the courts. The facts and circumstances are important and only in the event of violation of the rule of law, actions can be initiated and in other circumstances, no such actions can be initiated.


 The Public Servants/Police Officers must be allowed to perform their respective duties and responsibilities in the manner known to law, the judge added.

The judge said in the event of preventing such police officers, who all are otherwise acting in accordance with the procedure contemplated, then, the complaints of the accused persons cannot be entertained at all. Mostly, many such writ petitions are filed before the high courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to prevent the police officers from performing their duties and responsibilities and with an idea to threaten the police officials indirectly. Such actions of the litigants are to be dealt with seriously and those persons, who all are filing writ petitions with false set of facts, are also liable for prosecution, the judge added.

The judge said undoubtedly the police officials were working under stress. The police officers were working round the clock 24x7=365 days.

They have no specified time for the performance of their duties and responsibilities. Thus, the police officers, who all were under stress, need proper protection by all concerned including Courts, Higher police officials as well as the right thinking citizens.

The genuinity of the actions of the police officers must be taken into consideration at the first instance and their interests were also to be protected by the higher officials of the police department as well as by the courts.

Equally, the corrupt police officials were to be prosecuted. Thus, a balanced approach, in all such circumstances, was certainly warranted, the judge added.

The judge made the observations while dismissing a petition from S.Chandran, which sought a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District to take departmental action against the Inspector of police and Sub-Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Sivagangai.

The judge said in the case on hand, on account of certain family property disputes between the brothers, civil disputes were pending. The civil disputes ended with the criminal action and accordingly, the criminal cases were also registered.

Thus, the petitioner has to face the proceedings and defend his case in the manner known to law. Contrarily, the petitioner cannot accuse the police officers for registering a case against him. Such petitions cannot be entertained. “The petitioner has not established any acceptable grounds for the purpose of entertaining the present petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed”, the judge added.