Harjinder Singh‎ > ‎

POLICE INACTION - SC DIRECTIONS

POLICE INACTION – SC DIRECTIONS

ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.2 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.68 OF 2008

(For Prel. Hearing)

LALITA KUMARI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

GOVT.OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.)

Date: 14/07/2008 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. AGRAWAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pranesh,Adv.

Ms. Mona Rajvanshi,Adv. For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Exemption allowed.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The grievance in the present writ petition is that the occurrence had taken place in the month of May and, in that very month, on 11th May, 2008, the written report was submitted by the petitioner before the Officer In-charge of the concerned Police Station, who sat tight over the matter. Thereafter, when the Superintendent of Police was moved, a First Information Report (for short “F.I.R.”) was registered. Even thereafter, steps were not taken either for apprehending the accused or recovery of the minor girl child. It is a matter of experience of one of us (B.N. Agrawal, J.) while acting as Judge of Patna High Court, Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and Judge of this Court that in spite of law laid down by this Court, the concerned police authorities do not register F.I.Rs unless some direction is given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the High Court or this Court. Further experience shows that even after orders are passed by the concerned courts for registration of the case, the police does not take the necessary steps and when matters are brought to the notice of the Inspecting Judges of the High Court during the course of inspection of Courts and Superintendents of Police are taken to task, then only F.I.Rs are registered. In large number of cases investigations do not commence

even after registration of F.I.Rs and in case like the present one, steps

are not taken for recovery of the kidnapped person or apprehending the accused person with reasonable despatch. At times it has been found that when harsh orders are passed by the Members of the Judiciary in a State, the police becomes hostile to them for instance in Bihar when a bail petition filed by a police personnel, who was accused was rejected by a member of Bihar Superior Judicial Service, he was assaulted in the Court room for which contempt proceeding was initiated by Patna High Court and the erring police officials were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment. On the other hand, there are innumerable cases that where the complainant is a practical person, F.I.Rs are registered immediately, copies thereof are made over to the complainant on the same day, investigation proceeds with supersonic jet speed, immediate steps are taken for apprehending the accused and recovery of the kidnapped persons and the properties which were subject matter of theft or dacoity. In the case before us allegations have been made that the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station is pressurising the complainant to withdraw the complaint, which, if true, is a very disturbing state of affairs. We do not know there may be innumerable such instances. In view of the above, we feel that it is high time to give directions to Governments of all the States and Union Territories besides their Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police as the case may be to the effect that if steps are not taken for registration of F.I.Rs immediately and copies thereof are not made over to the complainants, they may move the concerned Magistrates by filing complaint petitions to give direction to the police to register case immediately upon receipt/production of copy of the orders and make over copy of the F.I.Rs to the complainants, within twenty four hours of receipt/production of copy of such orders. It may further give direction to take immediate steps for apprehending the accused persons and recovery of kidnapped/abducted persons and properties which were subject matter of theft or dacoity. In case F.I.Rs are not registered within the aforementioned time, and/or aforementioned steps are not taken by the police, the concerned Magistrate would be justified in initiating contempt proceeding against such delinquent officers and punish them for violation of its orders if no sufficient cause is shown and awarding stringent punishment like sentence of imprisonment against them inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority would be quite justified in initiating departmental proceeding and suspending them in contemplation of the same. Keeping in mind these facts, we are of the view that notices should be issued to Government of all the States and Union Territories besides Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police as the case may be. Issue notice to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and the Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be, to show cause as to why aforesaid directions be not given by this Court. Notices may be sent to the parties by Fax and it should be mentioned therein that the order has been put on the Website of the Supreme Court of India so that they may file response without loss of time. Let the Registry place this order on the Website immediately on receipt of the file so that the concerned authorities know about the same and that the person concerned may file response within the time granted hereunder .

Three weeks' time is allowed to file response. Place this matter on 8th August, 2008.

[ Alka Dudeja ] [ Om Prakash ]

Court Master Court Master


OUT-TODAY

ITEM NO.62 COURT NO.2 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.68 OF 2008

LALITA KUMARI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

GOVT.OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s)

(With appln.(s) for intervention and office report)

Date: 08/08/2008 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. AGRAWAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.B. Upadhyay,Sr.Adv.

Mr. B.K. Shahi,Adv.

Mr. B.P. Gupta,Adv.

Mr. Pranesh,Adv.

Ms. Mona Rajvanshi,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv.

For Intervenor(s) Mr. S.P. Juneja,Adv.

Mr. Debasis Misra,Adv.

For Mizoram: Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv.

Mr. M.K. Michael,Adv.

For Gujarat: Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.

Ms. Pinky,Adv.

Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv.

Mr. Somnath,Adv.

For Maharashtra: Mr. Ravindra K. Adsure,Adv.

For N.C.T. of Delhi: Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv.

Ms. Sadhana Sandhu,Adv.

Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.

For Punjab: Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.

For Manipur: Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh,Adv.

Mr. David Rao,Adv.

Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv.

Mr. Vijay Prakash,Adv.

For Assam: Mr. Avijit Roy,Adv.

for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs.

For Uttar Pradesh: Ms. Shobha Dikshit,Sr.Adv.

Mr. T.N. Singh,Adv.

Mr. Rajeev Dubey,Adv.

Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv.

For Karnataka: Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv.

For Tamil Nadu and Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.

U.T. Pondicherry: Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv.

Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following


O R D E R

By order dated 14th July, 2008, we issued notices to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be, to show cause as to why the directions enumerated therein be not given by this Court. Notices were sent to the aforesaid authorities by the Supreme Court Registry by fax and it was mentioned in the notices that the order has been put on the website of the Supreme Court of India so that they may file responses without loss of time. The order was put on the website of the Supreme Court of India, as directed by this Court.It appears that notices have been served upon the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and all the Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be, but, in spite of that, it is pathetic state of affairs that only two States, viz., States of Uttar Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh, have responded and the other States did not bother to file their responses. Some of them have simply engaged their counsel, who are appearing in court, and, as usual, they have made prayer for time to file responses. In spite of the order passed on 14th July, 2008, that we intend to give certain directions enumerated therein, it is unfortunate that neither the Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be, nor the Superintendents of Police has taken any steps by giving suitable directions to the officers in-charge of the police stations. In view of this, we direct the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be, to see that the police officers posted in every police station throughout the country should act in accordance with the order dated 14th July, 2008, treating the proposed directions therein given by this Court to be the interim ones and, in case there is any failure on the part of any police officer, the concerned authority shall take immediate action against that officer. In any view of the matter, we grant two weeks' time by way of last chance to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories, except Chief Secretaries and Director Generals of Police of the States of Uttar Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh, as well as Directors General of Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be, to file responses failing which they shall have to appear in court in-person on the next date fixed in this case. As all the States and Union Territories are represented before this Court, it was not necessary for the Registry to communicate this order to the Chief Secretaries or Directors General of Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be. Nonetheless, the Registry is directed to communicate this order by fax as well to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and all the Director Generals of Police/ Commissioners of Police, as the case may be, Let order dated 14th July, 2008, and this order be put on the website of the Supreme Court of India so that the people of India may know what directions have been given by this Court and they may take appropriate steps in case of any inaction on the part of the concerned officer of the police station in instituting a case and the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall take action in a case of inaction upon filing of complaint petition and give direction to institute the case within the time directed in the said order failing which the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall not only initiate action against the delinquent police officer but punish them suitably by sending them to jail, in case the cause shown is found to be unsatisfactory. Apart from this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall

report the matter to the disciplinary authority at once by fax as well upon receipt of which the disciplinary authority shall suspend the concerned police officer immediately in contemplation of departmental proceeding.

Place the matter on 25th August, 2008.

[ T.I. Rajput ] [ Om Prakash ]

A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar


OUT-TODAY

ITEM NO.62-A COURT NO.2 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.68 OF 2008

LALITA KUMARI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

GOVT.OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s)

(With appln.(s) for intervention and office report)

Date: 08/08/2008 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. AGRAWAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.B. Upadhyay,Sr.Adv.

Mr. B.K. Shahi,Adv.

Mr. B.P. Gupta,Adv.

Mr. Pranesh,Adv.

Ms. Mona Rajvanshi,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv.

For Intervenor(s) Mr. S.P. Juneja,Adv.

Mr. Debasis Misra,Adv.

For Mizoram: Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv.

Mr. M.K. Michael,Adv.

For Gujarat: Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.

Ms. Pinky,Adv.

Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv.

Mr. Somnath,Adv.

For Maharashtra: Mr. Ravindra K. Adsure,Adv.

For N.C.T. of Delhi: Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv.

Ms. Sadhana Sandhu,Adv.

Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.

For Punjab: Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.

For Manipur: Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh,Adv.

Mr. David Rao,Adv.

Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv.

Mr. Vijay Prakash,Adv.

For Assam: Mr. Avijit Roy,Adv.

for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs.

For Uttar Pradesh: Ms. Shobha Dikshit,Sr.Adv.

Mr. T.N. Singh,Adv.

Mr. Rajeev Dubey,Adv.

Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv.

For Karnataka: Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv.

For Tamil Nadu and Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.

U.T. Pondicherry: Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv.

Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.

For Haryana: Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv.

Mr. T.V. George,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Let a copy of the order passed today and order dated 14th July, 2008, both of which have been put on the website, be sent to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts and Registrar (Admn.) of the Orissa High Court, by fax as well, for communicating the same to all the Sessions Judges, who shall, in their turn, communicate it to all the Magistrates within their respective districts.

[ T.I. Rajput ] [ Om Prakash ]

A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

Comments