Growing trend of filing petitions against police when case is registered: Madras High Court imposes ₹25K costs

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently lamented the growing trend of petitions being filed against police officials whenever a criminal case was registered [Amutha v. The Additional Principal Secretary]..Justice SM Subramaniam observed that this was a new tactic adopted by litigants, and underscored that such conduct would create many unnecessary actions if permitted to continue."There is a growing trend of filing writ petitions in High Court against the public officials, more specifically, Police official, whenever a criminal case is registered against some persons. It is a new tactics of the litigants that in the event of registering a criminal case and if arrest is executed, then they sent a representation to the Higher Officials stating that they were ill-treated in the Police Station," the order stated..The Court opined that this was a device to slow down investigations by police officials, which could never be appreciated."Once the Police officials are demoralized in such a manner, then they will be slow in initiating appropriate action in the manner known to law.".The issue arose when the husband of the petitioner, the elected President of Pappanam Panchayat, was attacked due to a political dispute and ended up sustaining a few injuries. Consequently, the Inspector of Police registered a case against the petitioner's husband and took him in to custody.The petitioner alleged that when she went to the police station, the inspector used abusive language and ill-treated her. She then made a representation to the authorities seeking departmental action against the inspector. However, no action was taken, prompting her to move the High Court..Counsel for the State objected to the petitioner's contentions, stating that the petition was filed with a false set of facts. It was their stand that the petitioner had taken personal vengeance against the officer, and that the representation appeared to be an afterthought since she sent it after a lapse of thirteen days from the incident..After hearing the parties, the Court found that viewed from any angle, the case of the petitioner did not inspire confidence. It was noted that in many cases, relatives of accused persons were sending representations to higher officials, and filing petitions seeking action against police authorities. Justice Subramaniam opined that such petitions should be rejected at the threshold, if the facts were doubtful."Such writ petitions, at no circumstances, be encouraged by the High Court, unless the petitioner has followed the procedure as contemplated under law", the Court recorded. While conceding that the police have committed excesses in the past, the Court made it clear,"However, such excessive exercise of power of the Public Authorities is to be substantiated and established. In the absence of any such proof to establish that the Police Authorities have exceeded their power, no direction can be issued to take departmental action against the Police Officials while performing their lawful duties by following the procedures as contemplated under law.".The single judge also took into account that the inspector was added as a party in her personal capacity. This, according to the Court, reflected that the petitioner had taken personal vengeance against the inspector and made an attempt to demoralize her from performing her lawful duties."As an elected Panchayat President, she is expected to be a law abiding citizen. If at all something happens to her husband and if she received any information, she is expected to initiate appropriate action in the manner known to law. Contrarily, the petitioner, in her official capacity, cannot pick up quarrel with the public official unnecessarily.".Therefore, the petition was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000, which was to be paid to the inspector who in turn was directed to use the money to provide basic amenities in the police station for the general public's use. .Advocates R Venkateshwaran and Arputharaj A represented the petitioners while Additional Government Pleader N Satheesh Kumar appeared for the respondents..[Read Order]