AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Natarajan, J.—This Petition is filed by the accused in Crime No. 555 of 1984 on the file of the Palayamkottai Police Station to quash the said Proceedings.
It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the Petition that the Petitioner was recruited as Sub Inspector in 1951, that he was promoted as Inspector in(sic)1978 that he has earned good and three meritorious service entries and that he is likely to be promoted as D.S.P. On 7th June, 1984, he is alleged to have committed rape of one Subbulakshmi Ammal, Wife of Subbu Raman and upon the complaint given to this effect, a case was registered. The third Respondent commenced his enquiry under Order 145 of the Police Standing Orders, Vol. I on 8th June, 1984 itself, but so far the Petitioner has not been given any opportunity to vindicate his innocence. The Petitioner submitted that the allegation of rape against him is absolutely false and fabricated, the reasons being:
(i) In a petition sent by the Reddiar Community people, the Petitioner found Subburaman, husband of the alleged victim Subbulakshmi, to be an associate along with Gr. 1, P.C. 586 for consuming arrack, indulging in immoral activities, etc. and he was warned for his nefarious activities. Petitioner submitted that the registering of the complaint is illegal, arbitrary and against Order No. 145, of the Police Standing Orders, and as such the proceedings have to be quashed. The Petitioner''s counsel challenged the validity of the registering of the F.I.R. and contended that it is not in accordance with Order 145. Order No. 145 of the Police Standing Orders. Vol. I reads as follows:
The following procedure is prescribed in respect of charges of torture of causing death or grievous hurt or rape, or commission of an unnatural offence against police officials:-In the moffusil (1)(a): A Gazetted Police Officer to whom a complaint of such an offence is made or also otherwise hears of such an occurrence should immediately start an informal investigation into the occurrence and should also report the same at once to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned. Any such investigation should be subject to the instructions in para (2) below (b)............
(2) (a). On receiving information about any such occurrence either from a Police Officer as indicated in paragraph (I) above or otherwise, an informal enquiry into the occurrence should be (sic) commenced.
(ii) Because of such activities, Petitioner found that the Sub Inspector who newly joined the station was also spoiled by the said Subburaman and Gr, 1, P.C. 586 and he informed the same to the Superintendent of Police, the second Respondent herein.
(iii) As the second Respondent was also convinced he transferred the said Sub Inspector of Vallioor.
(iv) On 6th September, 1983 also the Petitioner enquired the alleged victim girl and her husband in a petition and warned them.
(v) On 19th March 1984, Petitioner ordered for the registering of a complaint against the said Subburaman on the Petition given by one Kasturi, and consequently he is on conditional bail.
(vi) On 4th June, 1984, the said Subbulakshmi and Subburaman took possession of a house from the said Kasturi with the help of S.I. of Police and others on an order in I.A. No. 690/84 in O.S. No. 192/84 dated 17th May, 1984, though the order did not specify any particular name. On representation by Kasturi the Petitioner was ordered to conduct an enquiry by the second Respondent, and the Petitioner warned the said Subbulakshmi for misleading the police. Aggrieved by the above instances the present case has been foisted against the Petitioner. The (sic) enquiry has to be conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The enquiry will be of a non-judicial character more or less in the nature of an investigation in order to see whether there is a prima facie case for launching a criminal prosecution against the Police Officer concerned and to fix the responsibility on the individual Police Officers.
(b) There is no objection to a Gazetted Police Officer being associated with such an enquiry, but there should be no parallel investigation by the Police referred to in paragraph I above or otherwise, and any information gathered by a Gazetted Police Officer should promptly be reported to the Revenue Divisional Officer.
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the registering of the F.I.R. is not provided under the P.S.O.145, there is no prohibition for such registration and as such it cannot be said that the entire proceedings have to be quashed on the said illegality committed by the Respondents.
In the instant case, it is the admitted case that after receipt of the complaint, the Superintendent of Police, the second Respondent herein, without making an informal investigation and report to the R.D.O. as required under the Standing Orders, directed the Inspector of Police, first Respondent herein to register a case and send the F.I.R. to the third Respondent, viz., Sub Collector and R.D.O. for registering the case, the victim was sent to the Hospital and her clothes were seized and sent for analysis. The F.I.R. was also sent to the R.D.O., Cheranmadevi for enquiry under Order 145.
The learned Public Prosecutor produced the relevant file pending before the sub Collector and R.D.O. before this Court. It is seen from the said file that the Superintendent of Police did not start any informal investigation into the occurrence but he had directed the Inspector of Police to register a case u/s 376 , I.P.C. and send the report to the R.D.O. for enquiry.
The learned Counsel submitted that by registering the F.I.R. the Petitioner is stated as an accused and he is liable to be arrested for the offence u/s 376, I.P.C. and pursuant thereto, the Police have conducted enquiry by sending the victim to the Hospital and seizing her clothes. The learned Counsel contended that this has caused much prejudice to the Petitioner and that the said procedure was not contemplated or warranted under the Police Standing Orders. I see much force in the said contention of the Petitioner''s Counsel. In the instant case as per Order 145 of the Police Standing Orders, the Superintendent of Police should have started an informal investigation into the occurrence and reported the matter to the R.D.O. The proceedings of the enquiry should not be given vide publicity and the R.D.O. should have ascertained and satisfied whether there is a prima facie case for launching a criminal prosecution against the Petitioner. No doubt after registering of the said case, there was no parallel investigation which is in accordance with Order 145 (2)(b) extracted above. However, there cannot be any objection to Gazetted Police Officer being associated with the enquiry, by virtue of the order quoted above.
On a careful consideration of the entire materials placed before the Court, I am of the view that in view of the provision of the Order 145 of the Police Standing Order, the registering of the F.I.R. by the first Respondent herein is not sustainable and it is liable to be quashed. However, by quashing the said F.I.R. the enquiry conducted by the third Respondent herein would not be affected. The third Respondent, viz., Sub Collector and R.D.O. would independently hold an enquiry and ascertain whether there is a prima facie case for launching a criminal prosecution against the Petitioner. He is also entitled to peruse the Police Report and other relevant records furnished in the case.
In the result the registering of the complaint and the proceedings in C.C. No. 556 of 1984 on the file of the Palayamkottai Police Station are hereby quashed.
However, the proceeding pending before the Collector and R.D.O. under Or. 145 of the P.S.O. shall continue on the basis of the complaint given by the alleged victim Subbulakshmi.