1997 (1) TMI 565 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the petitioner's actions in informing the court about alleged illegal detentions.
2. Legality of the police summoning the petitioner under Section 160(2) Cr.P.C.
3. Appropriateness of charging the petitioner under Section 188 IPC.
4. Police conduct and abuse of power in summoning the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the petitioner's actions in informing the court about alleged illegal detentions:
The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, informed the court via telegrams about alleged illegal detentions at various police stations in Mahbubnagar district. The petitioner claimed that he was subjected to harassment by the respondents (police officers) for performing his legitimate duty of reporting these detentions. The court noted that the petitioner had sent a telegram on 11-11-1996, informing about five persons being illegally detained, which led to their production before the Judicial First Class Magistrate and subsequent remand to judicial custody. The court found no reason to doubt the petitioner's actions in informing the court about these detentions.

2. Legality of the police summoning the petitioner under Section 160(2) Cr.P.C.:
The police summoned the petitioner under Section 160(2) Cr.P.C., which allows a police officer to require the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The court examined whether the petitioner was genuinely acquainted with the facts of the cases for which he was summoned. It was found that the petitioner was summoned solely because he had informed the court about illegal detentions, not because he had any relevant information about the cases. The court emphasized that Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. requires the summoned person to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, which was not applicable to the petitioner.

3. Appropriateness of charging the petitioner under Section 188 IPC:
The petitioner was charged under Section 188 IPC for failing to respond to police summons. Section 188 IPC deals with disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant. The court clarified that an order under Section 160 Cr.P.C. is not an order promulgated by a public servant as contemplated under Section 188 IPC. Therefore, the charge under Section 188 IPC was deemed inappropriate and illegal.

4. Police conduct and abuse of power in summoning the petitioner:
The court found that the police officers, including the District Superintendent of Police, abused their power by summoning the petitioner without any legitimate reason. The court noted that the police were retaliating against the petitioner for reporting illegal detentions, rather than investigating the cases impartially. The court expressed concern over the police's conduct, emphasizing that the police cannot punish individuals for informing the court about illegal activities. The court also highlighted the importance of the police's role in investigating cases without bias and the need for the District Superintendent of Police to ensure that subordinate officers adhere to legal bounds.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, restraining the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner and quashing all notices issued under Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. The court directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the State Government for necessary instructions to the District Superintendent of Police to prevent such abuses of power in the future. The application was allowed, and the court emphasized the need for police accountability and adherence to legal procedures.