BEWARE OF MALPRACTICE OF CRIMINAL POLICE AND INDIFFERENT MAGISTRATES.

 

 

HINTS FOR CONSIDERATION with reference to the Crime No. 701/07 : C.S.R. No. 502 Dt. 25.09.2007 on the file of BATLAGUNDU Police Station ,Dindigul District of Tamilnadu in South India:-

 

 

 

 

(i).Offenders/Accused in the complaint being henchmen of powerful politiciansand in a well understanding with the police officers of the Batlagundu Police Station, the complaint lodged at first was intentionally registered as a second complaint only after instigating the offenders therein to lodge a complaint against the complainant and his family members.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(ii).Complainant was compelled by the police (S.I. of Police, Crime) to alter the time of occurrence mentioned in the complaint by over writing, with a malafide intention of helping the offenders during the trial.

 

 

 

 

(iii).Inordinate delay of almost 2 weeks in sending the F.I.R. in crime No. 701/07 to the nearest magistrate whereas the F.I.Rs. registered thereafter had been sent therebefore to the J.M. Court of Nilakkottai.

 

 

 

(iv).The informant / complainant had filed a Copy Application No. 344/2007 dt. 04.10.2007 before the J.M. Court for issuance of certified copy of the F.I.R. in crime No. 701/07 registered in Batlagundu Police Station on 25.09.2007. It is only after being learnt that the said copy application was returned by the J.M. Court, Nilakkottai on 05.10.2007 with the remark “No such F.I.R. is received by this court” that the F.I.R. was sent to the J.M. Court by the Batlagundu Police Station.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(v).Final report has been filed by the Investigating Officer after 27 months from the date of registration of the criminal case. However, he never recorded the statements of the complainant and the eye witnesses so far (!).

 

 

 

(vi).The Investigating Officer has reported the complaint to be a false complaint / mistake of fact after a biased and partial investigation with an eye to shield the wrong-doers.

 

 

 

(vii).The offenders had threatened the complainant on 29.12.2009 through the above stated rowdy to face dire consequences in the event of moving any protest petition against the final report of the Investigating Officer in crime No. : 701/07 before J.M. Court of Nilakkottai.

 

 

 

 

(viii).Delay of 27 months in submitting the final report before the J.M. Court in Crime No. 701/07 is intentional and with an eye of defeating the purpose of re-investigation, if any likely to be ordered in the future, in view of lapse of long period of time from the date of occurrence.

 

 

 

 

PRECEDENT

 

(i).F.I.R.

 

F.I.R. to be sent to the nearest Magistrate within 24 hrs.

 

2006 (8) SCALE 433 and (2001) 3 SCC 147

 

(ii).Delay in investigation

 

Every effort should be made to avoid delay in the investigation and trial which is harmful not only to the individuals involved, but also to the Society. (Bombay High Court).

 

 

 

(iii).Criminal Trial

 

“Acquitting the guilty is as much doing injustice as convicting the innocent and both are to be scrupulously avoided” 

 

 

2009 (2) Mh. L.J. 249 (Bom) (D.B.)

 

 

 

(iv).Inaction on part of Police

 

“Inaction on part of police authorities cannot be ignored nor can be pardoned. Shielding or trying to shield any wrong-doer itself is a serious offence and assumes more seriousness when it is committed by a person none other than from the police department. Mere disciplinary action in that regard would not be sufficient answer. Held, Court does expect the Government to take a serious note of this and to take appropriate action against the erring police officers and personnel”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2008 (2) Bom. C.R.(Cri) 272