Courts cannot stand in the way of the police officials to register a case in an appropriate manner: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently emphasised that it cannot issue blanket directions that would confuse police when it comes to matters of arrest and registration of cases while declining to pass orders mandating the police to issue notice before the registration of a case (Vasantha v. Superintendent of Police and ors)..Justice SM Subramaniam opined that some freedom should be left with the police to evaluate whether or not an arrest is required in a particular case. .The order passed earlier this week reads:."... the Courts cannot stand in the way of the police officials to register a case in an appropriate manner, by following the procedures contemplated or the Court cannot either direct in advance in anticipatory bail petitions stating whether the police should exercise power under Section 41 Cr.P.C or under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. which must be based on the facts and circumstances of each case and therefore, the question of issuing direction to issue notice in any case would not arise.".The Judge added,."This Court is of the considered opinion that the required amount of freedom is essential to exercise the powers by the police authorities to control the crime and maintain law and order in the interest of the public at large.".Case must be registered before Court can consider question of anticipatory bail.The petitioner before the Court submitted that she apprehended her arrest for alleged offences relating to conspiracy, forgery and cheating. She urged the Court for orders so that the police may issue her notice under Section 41 (A) CrPC so that if any case is registered against her, she may move an anticipatory bail application before the Court. .The Court, however, pointed out that the question of anticipatory bail generally arises only after the registration of an FIR. .A case must be registered for the purpose of considering an anticipatory bail petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Court said, adding:."The idea of getting such an order is that in case, First Information Report is filed by the jurisdictional police, then a breathing time should be given to the accused persons for filing anticipatory bail petition.".The Court further explained that if it passes orders even before a case is registered, it may confuse the police and impair their ability to carry out their functions under the CrPC. The order reads:."Once a case is registered then only the Courts are expected to pass appropriate orders and not in all circumstances. There may be some exceptional cases, but the same cannot be followed as a precedent or rule. In the event of passing orders even before registration of cases there is a possibility of confusion in the minds of the police officials and it may not be possible to initiate free and fair action by following the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, the order in advance passed shall not pressurize the police officer to act in a particular manner, which may certainly hamper free and fair dealing of criminal cases in accordance with the procedures.".Erroneous application of blanket orders may allow accused to abscond.The Court further emphasised that uniform orders cannot be passed in all cases to mandate that notice must be issued to an accused person on the registration of a case. .Section 41 (A), CrPC only contemplates the issuance of notice in lieu of arrest where the arrest of a person is not required, and not otherwise. Such notice would certainly not have to be issued in all other cases where an arrest is imminent and warranted, the Court said..The police is expected to decide whether or not an arrest is required in a given case, the Court observed. .Blanket orders by the Court mandating that notice should be issued instead of arrest, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, could be misinterpreted to allow accused persons to abscond, the Court added.."... there is a possibility of erroneous implementation of the orders by the police or likelihood of absconding by the accused persons. If an accused person is allowed to abscond, it would be very difficult for the police officials to again arrest and investigate the matter to continue the prosecution", reads the order..The Court further noted, "It is a world of electronic advancement. Criminals are acting intelligently and, they are one step ahead of the technological advancement. Thus, on registration of cases the police officer must take a decision, whether an arrest is necessary or not. Ultimately an offender should not be allowed to escape from the clutches of law. Law enforcing agencies are to be doubly cautious, while dealing with such complex criminal activities prevailing in the society. Undoubtedly, procedures are to be followed scrupulously. However, the decision making powers must be vested with the police officer concerned in consonance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and other laws in force.".... on registration of cases the police officer must take a decision, whether an arrest is necessary or not. Ultimately an offender should not be allowed to escape from the clutches of law.Madras High Court.With these observations, the petition was dismissed. The Court also directed the Registry to communicate the order to the Director General of Police so that it could be circulated across police stations in Tamil Nadu