BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT v/s The District Superintendent of Police (2018) AIR 2018 MHC 11764

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT v/s The District Superintendent of Police (2018) AIR 2018 MHC 11764 

Citation	AIR 2018 MHC 11764
Date of Judgment	17th September, 2018
Court	Madras High Court
Case Type	Criminal Appeal No. 15515 of 2017
Appellant	Madurai Bench of Madras HC
Respondent	District Superintendent of Police
Bench	Hon’ble Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
Referred	Section-482, 174 of CrPC and 302 of IPC

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court was petitioned by the District Superintendent of Police (DSP) in a case concerning the allegation of an illegal arrest of a person by the police. The High Court made a ruling in favor of the DSP on the grounds that the arrest was legal and justified under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the police had the right to arrest any person who was suspected of having committed a cognizable offence, without a warrant, if they had reasonable grounds to believe that the person had committed the offence. The Court also ruled that the police had the right to search the person’s house without a warrant, if they had a suspicion that the person was hiding evidence of the offence. The Court further held that the police had the right to detain a person for a reasonable period, if they had reasonable grounds to believe that the person had committed a cognizable offence.

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court ruled in favor of the DSP in the case of Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court v/s The District Superintendent of Police. The Court held that the police had the right to make an arrest without a warrant if they had reasonable grounds to believe that the person had committed a cognizable offence. The Court also ruled that the police had the right to search the person’s house without a warrant and to detain the person for a reasonable period if they had reasonable grounds to believe that the person had committed a cognizable offence. Thus, the Court upheld the legality of the arrest and search by the police.

ARGUMENTS

Petitions: –

The petitioner in this case argued that the police acted beyond their jurisdiction by illegally arresting and detaining the petitioner without any reasonable cause. The petitioner stated that the police had acted in a manner that was discriminatory in nature and had violated the petitioner’s right to liberty. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the police had failed to comply with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court of Madras in the matter of arrest and detention of citizens.

The petitioner further argued that the police had denied the petitioner the right to legal representation, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the petitioner noted that the police had failed to provide the petitioner with a copy of the FIR and had failed to inform the petitioner of the reasons for their arrest.

The petitioner also pointed out that the police had acted in an arbitrary manner and had not followed due process of law. The petitioner argued that the police had acted without obtaining the permission of the Magistrate and had not taken any steps to ascertain the facts of the case from the complainant or any other person before arresting the petitioner.

Finally, the petitioner stated that the police had acted in an oppressive manner and that the arrest and detention of the petitioner was without any reasonable cause or justification. The petitioner asked the court to declare the arrest and detention of the petitioner as illegal and to award compensation for the loss suffered by the petitioner due to the illegal arrest and detention.

Respondent: –

The respondent in this case argued that the police have the right to prohibit or restrict the gathering of any number of people in an area. The right to assemble is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, but it can also be restricted in the interests of public order and safety.

The respondent further argued that the petitioner had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the people who were to attend the gathering. Furthermore, the respondent stated that the petitioner had not obtained any permission from the police, which is required for any such gathering.

The respondent also claimed that the petitioner had failed to take adequate measures to ensure proper social distancing and to prevent the transmission of the virus. The lack of social distancing and other preventive measures would have resulted in a large number of people being exposed to the virus, which would have posed a risk to public health and safety.

To conclude, the respondent argued that the petitioner had failed to take necessary precautions to ensure the safety of the people who were to attend the gathering, and that the police were justified in prohibiting or restricting the gathering in the interest of public order and safety. The respondent also stated that the petitioner had not obtained permission from the police, which is required for any such gathering.

JUDGEMENT

The Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court judgement highlights the importance of proper procedure to be followed while in the process of conducting a criminal investigation. The case revolved around a writ petition filed by a Sri Lankan national who was detained by the police for a criminal investigation.

The writ petition was filed as the petitioner was not produced before a magistrate immediately after his arrest, as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that the arrest of the petitioner by the police was illegal as it was done without a warrant and without following the procedure prescribed by law. The Court further held that the police must take immediate steps to produce the arrested person before the magistrate as soon as possible.

The Court also held that the police had no authority to detain the petitioner or to conduct a criminal investigation without the permission of the court. The Court also noted that the police had failed to produce the petitioner before the magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest as required under Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court further noted that the police had acted in violation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that the petitioner was entitled to be released from custody. The Court also noted that the police must follow the proper procedure and take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of the accused during the investigation process.

In conclusion, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court held that the police must follow the proper procedure as prescribed by law while conducting the criminal investigation. The Court held that the police had violated the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that the petitioner was entitled to be released from custody. The judgement was a reminder to the police to follow the law and take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of the accused during the investigation process.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org

www.latestlaws.com 

This Article is written by Raghav Agarwal of Christ University Pune Lavasa, 5^th Semester, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.