Case Title: S Vasanthi vs M Baggyalakshmi
A single bench of Justice P Velmurugan of Madras High Court in a contempt petition filed against a Police Inspector, observed that 90% of police officers are corruptive in police department and only 10% of police officers are honest.
“Though this Court finds that the capacity of the investigating officer is not upto the mark and within her capacity she has investigated the case, the incapacity of the investigation officer cannot be treated as wilfully disobey the order of this Court. Unfortunately, as on date, the police department is running with 90% of the corruptive officers as well as the officers not having adequate capacity to do the investigation and only 10% of the officers are honest and abled officers. The 10% of officials alone cannot do all the investigation. Therefore, it is right time to sensitize the officials and find out to eradicate corruptive officers and give adequate training to the officers those who are not corruptive but they are incapacity to do investigation”.
The background of the case
The petitioner gave a complaint before the Inspector of Police, against one Natesan and Rajavelu. On the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 294(b), 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506(ii) IPC.
After completing the investigation, the respondent police closed the case as ‘Mistake of Fact’ on and did not serve RCS notice to the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not receive the Referred Charge Sheet Notice from the respondent police, this Court directed the respondent police to serve RCS notice forthwith to the petitioner and granted liberty to the petitioner to file a protest petition in the manner known to law. Subsequently, the petitioner filed protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate.
This Court, after hearing the arguments, directed the respondent to conduct fresh investigation and also directed to expedite the investigation and file a charge sheet in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subsequently, the present respondent, who is an Investigating Officer, took up the investigation and completed the same.
After completion of investigation, the respondent police closed the case as ‘mistake of fact’, and served RCS notice on the same day and also filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate.
Therefore, the petitioner through the contempt petition approached the Hon’ble High Court.
The petitioner contented that the police has not conducted the investigation in a fair manner.
The bench observed that it is the right time to sensitize police officers.
“It is relevant to state that on the date of preferring original complaint the alleged executor of the sale deed was very much alive, if the respondent police immediately examined the said Kamalam, the entire truth would have come out. Whereas till the death of the said Kamalam, the respondent police did not examine her”.
The bench ordered that “”Based on the statement of the list of witnesses, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and therefore, the respondent police has closed the criminal case …On a careful perusal of the records, this Court does not find that the respondent police wilfully disobey the order of this Court. Since then respondent police, after completion of the investigation, has filed charge sheet before the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court, the petitioner can file protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate and proceed with the case in accordance with law”.
The bench also added that the petitioner has liberty to take action against the inspector for her incapacity before the Judicial Magistrate.