#Police Archives - Page 2 of 2

25 Jan

THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD AN ORDER SUMMONING POLICE OFFICERS IN A CORRUPTION CASE

Prime Legal

Blog, blog # Supreme Court, #corruption, #criminalappeal, #CrPc, #judgment, #Police

Case title: Gurdev Singh Bhalla vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Case no.: SPL(Crl.) appeal no. 11654 of 2013

Decided on: 05.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellant has filed a criminal appeal with the Supreme Court of India, contesting the decision made by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Chandigarh on March 23, 2023, which dismissed the Criminal Revision the appellant had filed in opposition to the Special Judge’s Bathinda order of March 5, 2018, which had allowed the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, summoning the appellant and three other police department officials.

Punjab Agro Food grains Corporation Ltd. of Bathinda filed a complaint against Devraj Miglani at the Phul Police Station in the District of Bathinda, which was registered as a FIR. The complaint alleged that Devraj had misappropriated paddy. The investigation of the said FIR was transferred to the Vigilance Bureau in Bathinda, where the appellant was posted as an Inspector and tasked with investigating the crime. The accused, Devraj, was arrested. He was granted police remand and then transferred to judicial custody.

And the informant in this case, Puneet Kumar Miglani, is the accused Devraj’s son. According to the informant in this case, on September 6, 2013, Head Constable Kikkar Singh approached Ms. Ritu, the accused Devraj’s niece, at her workplace, the Bathinda branch of the SBI, demanding a sum of Rs.50,000/- by handing over a slip purportedly written by the accused Devraj, indicating that the holder of the slip may be provided with the said amount. Devraj and his niece Ritu allegedly conversed on Head Constable Kikkar Singh’s mobile phone. The informant came to know of the said demand by Kikkar Singh. He went to the bank, took the slip, and after recording a conversation between his wife and his father, he presented it to the learned Magistrate, along with a complaint.

The local police were directed to register the complaint and investigate it further. Following a thorough investigation by Deputy Superintendent of Police Janak Singh, it was determined that the allegations against Head Constable Kikkar Singh were prima facie true, and a First Information Report was filed at the police station Vigilance Bureau in Bathinda. During the investigation of the aforementioned FIR, the informant, informant’s wife, Devraj, and others provided statements. Following the investigation, a police report against Head Constable Kikkar Singh only.

The date of both trials, the trial arising out of the FIR against Devraj and the trial arising out of the FIR against Head Constable Kikkar Singh, coincided on September 29, 2014. The appellant went on to depose, supporting both the prosecution’s case and his own investigation of Devraj. On that date, in the trial against Head Constable Kikkar Singh, informant Puneet Miglani provided additional evidence as PW 1. On the specified date, he completed both his chief and cross examinations. In addition, he prepared and filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the appellant and three other police officials.

The trial court dismissed the application due to a lack of sanction under both the PC Act and the Cr.P.C. The said order was successfully challenged before the High Court, and the High Court, in an order dated 23.01.2018, remanded the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh order, ignoring the issue of sanction. The High Court believed that no sanction was required. The Trial Court granted the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the four police officials in accordance with the remand. The appellant challenged the 05.03.2018 order in the High Court.

The high court dismissed the said revision in the impugned order dated March 23, 2023. Aggrieved, and it is now being appealed to the Supreme Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. deals with “Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence”,

406 of IPC deals with “Punishment for criminal breach of trust”,

409 of IPC deals with “Criminal breach of trust by public, servant. or by banker, merchant or agent”,

420 of IPC deals with “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property”,

457 of IPC deals with “Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment” and

Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 13(2) of PC Act deals with “Criminal misconduct by a public servant”.

APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS:

He claimed that it was a pressure tactic on the part of the informant to browbeat the appellant because he had deposed against his father Devraj. The informant, was convicted in another case, so his statement should not have been relied on.

The complaint dated 06.09.2013 made no allegations against the appellant. The complaint was filed on September 6, 2013, for a demand of only Rs.50,000/-. Subsequently, in a statement issued on September 29, 2014, the four officials, one Deputy Superintendent of Police, the appellant, and two other Head Constables, allegedly demanded Rs.24 lakhs.

RESPONDANTS CONTENTIONS:

They claimed that the appellant and other police officers had not only harassed and tortured Devraj while he was in custody, but also threatened and tortured family members both mentally and physically in order to extract a large sum of money. They submitted the relevant witnesses’ statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. both during the investigation and before the Trial Court.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

After considering the submissions, the court concluded that it is clear that the informant, in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 22.09.2013, narrated complete facts regarding the conduct of police officials immediately following his father’s surrender on 30.08.2013 in the case registered against him for misappropriation. The informant has consistently supported the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. from that point forward, including during the trial.

Even Devraj and Eshaa Miglani, in statements recorded during the investigation on 15.10.2013 and 22.10.2013, respectively, provided the same information as narrated by informant Puneet Miglani on 22.09.2013. Furthermore, their statements during the trial support and align with their previous statements. All of these witnesses have unequivocally described incidents that occurred at various locations, including threats, demands for large sums of money, torture of Devraj.

The Informant gave the same statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before the Trial Court on May 26, 2014, which was continued on September 29, 2014. There appears to be prima facie evidence on record to establish a triable case against the appellant. As a result, we are unlikely to challenge the contested order. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

27 Oct

Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take The Place Of Proof: High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #Police, #Posh, #Sexual Assault, #Suspicion

Title: Mukesh Khampariya S/O V The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.

Citation: Writ Petition No. 21852 of 2018

Decided on: 05th Of October, 2023

Coram: Justice Sujoy Paul

Introduction:

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the order dated 25.06.2018 and the enquiry report dated 25.07.2018 whereby the petitioner was held guilty for committing sexual harassment at the workplace.

Facts:

The petitioner was working as Station House Officer (SHO), in Police Station Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur between 27.08.2016 to 24.03.2017. During that period, respondent was posted in the said police station as Sub- Inspector.Respondent as an afterthought preferred a frivolous complaint dated 16.03.2017 alleging that petitioner committed sexual harassment in the workplace. Pursuant to the complaint dated 16.03.2017, an internal complaint committee was constituted as per the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), 2013.

The internal committee consisting of five members conducted the inquiry, recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the report on 26.05.2017 and opined that the allegations against the petitioner for committing sexual harassment in workplace are not established. The respondent preferred an application against the aforesaid report of internal complain committee dated 24.05.2017. On 25.12.2017 the departmental authority came to hold that allegation of sexual harassment could not be established against the petitioner.

learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to another report dated 25.07.2018 whereby another inquiry report was prepared wherein charges were found to be proved against the petitioner.

Court’s decision and analysis :

The complaint can be made in writing within a period of three months from the date of incident. In this case, it is clear that incident had taken place on 12/10/2016 and complaint was preferred on 16/03/2017. Thus, complaint itself was barred by time. Apart from that complaint was considered by a five members committee which came to hold in the report dated 26/05/2017 that allegation of sexual harassment in work place could not be established against the petitioner. Even in Departmental appeal the concern authority came to hold that for want of sufficient evidence, allegation of sexual harassment in workplace could not be established.

here is no material evidence available against the petitioner. Merely because the complainant preferred repeated complains, the petitioner was held to be guilty. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof [See: AIR 1964 SC 364 (Union of India v. H.C. Goel)] For this reason also, this enquiry report is liable to be set aside. Hence, impugned order of Police Headquarter dated 25/06/2018 and enquiry report dated 25/07/2018 are set aside.

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

22 Aug

Delhi High Court Sets Guidelines on Quashing FIRs and Responsible Mediation Practices

Prime Legal

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #FIR, #Guidelines, #Police

Title: Abhishek & Ors. v. The State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Decided on: 16th August, 2023

+ CRL.M.C. 5720/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTASHARMA

Introduction

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court, while addressing a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking the quashing of an FIR, highlighted the importance of responsible mediation practices in resolving serious offenses. The court observed that non-compoundable offenses cannot be resolved solely through monetary agreements and emphasized the need for upholding lawful and principled mediation practices.

Facts

The petitioners sought the quashing of an FIR filed against them for alleged offenses under Sections 308/34 of the IPC. The parties had settled the matter amicably and signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for a monetary settlement of Rs. 40,000. It was revealed that Rs. 30,000 in cash was intended for the purpose of quashing the FIR.

Analysis

The court examined the principles of law related to quashing FIRs based on settlements as laid down in cases such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Parbhatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat. It differentiated between compounding offenses under Section 320 and quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC, emphasizing that the latter is discretionary and aimed at preventing process abuse while ensuring justice.

The court scrutinized the mediated settlement agreement, noting that the mediator had exceeded their jurisdiction by attempting to compound a non-compoundable offense. The agreement’s language suggested that serious offenses could be resolved through payments, which misled the parties involved. The court highlighted that quashing non-compoundable offenses is a discretionary decision that must adhere to established principles.

Held

The court held that serious offenses cannot be settled through monetary agreements alone. It stressed that the mediator’s role is not to compound non-compoundable offenses but to facilitate lawful and responsible mediation practices. While the court decided to quash the FIR based on unique circumstances, it imposed costs on the petitioners for misinterpreting the agreement.

The court laid down guidelines for mediators, emphasizing the importance of clarity in mediated settlement agreements. It directed mediators to specify that quashing of FIRs for non-compoundable offenses is at the court’s discretion and depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The court urged mediators to ensure that parties understand the legal consequences and enforceability of agreements.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling underscores the significance of responsible mediation practices and the proper interpretation of mediated settlement agreements. The judgment establishes that serious offenses cannot be resolved through monetary agreements and encourages mediators to uphold lawful principles while facilitating settlements.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Clicke here to view judgement

2 Aug

Second Stint Of Police Custody After Judicial Custody Of Accused Not Permissible: Karnataka High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #Karnataka High Court, #Police

Title: Emmanuel Michael And Union of India

Case No: WP 17961/2021

Date of Order: 28-07-2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE M NAGAPRASANNA

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has held that once an accused has spent a substantial period in judicial custody, they cannot be remanded to police custody again for the same case.

FACTS OF THE CASE

According to the prosecution, the petitioner was arrested when the Narcotic Control Bureau seized 610 grams of MDMA from the foreign Post Office in Chamarajpet, Bengaluru, in December 2020. After recording his statement, the petitioner was placed in police custody for five days and later remanded to judicial custody. During the investigation, accused no. 3 was also arrested, claiming to be a regular drug consumer supplied by the petitioner on more than 100 occasions. As a result, the NCB filed another application in May 2021, requesting police custody of the petitioner for three more days, which was granted. During this period, the police obtained statements from the petitioner about his involvement with accused no. 3 and the events’ chain. The petitioner has challenged the legality of this custody and the recorded statements, seeking their exclusion in their entirety.

COURT ANALYSIS

The Karnataka High Court, with a Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, partly allowed the petition filed by Emmanuel Michael. It declared the second stint of police custody, which occurred six months after the initial arrest and after the accused had been in judicial custody for a substantial period, as illegal. The court clarified that seeking police custody repeatedly after the accused has been remanded to judicial custody for a long time is not permissible. However, the court did not completely exclude the statements recorded during the illegal custody. The concerned court would be at liberty to assess the veracity of these statements and regulate the procedure in accordance with the law. The bench said, “The second stint of Police custody, in the same case, of the petitioner between 21-05-2021 and 23-05-2021 is illegal, and the statements recorded during the said period would become statements recorded during the course of illegal custody.”

Written by- Shreya Sharma

Click here to view the judgement

12 Jul

Madras High Court Directs the police to come up with a standard operating procedure for conducting potency test using blood samples.

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #Justice Mr. N.Anand Venkatesh, #Justice Sunder Mohan, #MadrasHighCourt, #Police, #Potencytest

TITLE: Kajendra Vs. Superintendent of Police and others.

Decided On-: June 07, 2023

H.C.P.No.2182 of 2022

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. N.Anand Venkatesh and Sunder Mohan.

Facts:

X (D.O.B. 09.08.2005) and Y (D.O.B. 22.03.2005) fell in love with each other. There was some pressure on the side of X to get her married. Hence, X informed about this to Y and wanted to desperately get married to Y to pre-empt the parents of X from not getting X married elsewhere. On 03.12.2022, Y tied Thali around the neck of X in a temple as a symbol of marriage and they rented a house at Avadi and started living there. Over a period of time, X also got pregnant. Y was kept in POS for nearly 14 days and he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board for bail hearing. Since the concerned Magistrate was on leave, the bail petition was not able to be taken up immediately. In the meantime, the court had passed an order on 16.06.2023 seeking for a report regarding this case. Ultimately on 21.06.2023, Y was released from the POS and was sent along with his parents. By then, Y had spent nearly 20 days in the POS.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The division bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sundar Mohan – which was constituted to monitor the implementation of provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Justice Act on the judicial side, had earlier sought a status report from the DGP regarding details of cases pending before the Courts/Juvenile Justice Board from 2010 to 2013, pertaining to victims and children in conflict with law. The court, on perusing this report, noted that out of a total of 1728 cases registered, 1274 cases are pending which could be divided into three heads-cases that are under investigation, cases where investigation has been completed but the final report has not been taken on file and cases pending trial. It then directed the DGP to ascertain the cases involving consensual relationships out of the 1274 cases. The court also directed the DGP to prepare a brief note on the facts of the case accompanied with the Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim to help the court to understand and take a decision. “While identifying those cases, a brief note on the facts of the case shall be prepared in order to enable this Court to understand and take a decision accordingly. The brief note shall also be accompanied with the 164 statement recorded from the victim.” the court said.

The court has also directed the police to come up with a standard operating procedure for conducting potency test using blood samples as the mechanism of collecting sperm samples from the offender was a thing of past.

Conclusion:

The Madras High Court has directed the State Police to ascertain the number of pending cases before the Courts/Juvenile Justice Boards involving consensual relationships of minor children. The court said that the same would allow it to deal with the cases and quash the proceedings, in appropriate cases, if found to be against the future and interest of the children or if found to be an abuse of the process of law.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

1 2