The Telangana High Court has recently held that non-compliance with Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) during criminal investigations, along with the failure to preserve CCTV footage at police stations as mandated by the Supreme Court, raises serious concerns regarding procedural safeguards and accountability.
Court's Ruling on Police Petitions
Justice N Tukaramji, while dismissing criminal petitions filed by two police officers seeking to quash cases against them, stated that issues relating to the registration of a case, the applicability of the Information Technology Act, and the jurisdiction of the petitioners in initiating crime proceedings involve mixed questions of law and fact. These cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage, thereby allowing the proceedings against the police officers to continue in the respective trial courts.
Details of the Case
The petitioners — Namindla Shankar, station house officer of Begum Bazar police station, and sub-inspector Rupavath Pavan, who had previously worked at the same station and is currently posted at Bandlaguda police station — approached the court to quash cases registered against them for allegedly illegally detaining advocate Vijay Gopal at the police station without an FIR.
Although the petitioners contended that the allegations were false and that they had summoned Vijay Gopal as part of their official duties, the court pointed out several procedural lapses. Justice N Tukaramji noted that such acts raise serious concerns regarding procedural safeguards and accountability, and prima facie disclose the ingredients of cognizable offences such as wrongful confinement and misuse of authority.
Background of the Incident
The case against Vijay Gopal pertains to his alleged social media posts criticising prohibitory orders related to public examinations, as well as his comments on a news article in 2023. Vijay Gopal argued that he was unlawfully detained at the police station for several hours before the registration of the FIR, rendering such detention unconstitutional and without legal authority.
He further contended that no valid notice was served on him and that the police obtained acknowledgement of the notice under coercion, amounting to wrongful confinement. He argued that these actions cannot be treated as acts performed in the discharge of official duty.
Court's Observations
Upon examining the material, the court found that the allegations of illegal detention prior to the registration of the FIR, coercion in obtaining acknowledgement under Section 41-A CrPC, and abuse of police authority, if accepted as true, prima facie disclose the ingredients of cognizable offences such as wrongful confinement and misuse of authority.
Regarding protection for the petitioners, the court, relying on precedent Supreme Court rulings, noted that such protection is available only when the allegations bear a reasonable nexus with official duty. The court observed: “Acts which are manifestly illegal or constitute abuse of authority fall outside its scope.”
The court further pointed out that in the present case, allegations of illegal detention and coercion, if established, cannot be said to be acts done in lawful discharge of official duties.
