Calcutta HC Directs Action Against Police Office For Misuse Of Section 41A, CrPC

MATTER IN ISSUE

· The High Court of Calcutta was hearing a Petition for anticipatory bail filed by one Ranjit De who was served a notice under Section 41A to appear before the officer in relation to a crime in the case of Ranjit De @ Ranjit Kumar De v. State.

· Three people allegedly carried a forged cheque to be deposited in bank and on suspicion by a bank official decamped and later one of more of them were arrested.

· One of the arrested persons claimed that the petitioner introduced him to Gautam Bhar who introduced him to another conspirator. The arrested person was associated with a charitable organisation which required donations and Gautam Bhar was an erstwhile bank official who would be aware of possible donors, therefore the petitioner, a retired taxman introduced the arrested person to Gautam Bhar.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE HC

· The court observed that the chain of events exhibit no role of either the petitioner or even Gautam Bhar.

· The HC identified it as a case of extortion and harassment by the investigating officer by misusing the provision under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

· The Court noted that there was no role mentioned about the petitioner in the case records running over 100 pages and remarked that it is more important to proceed against uniformed criminals before other criminal activity is checked.

· The Court surmised that the Section 41A notice served on the petitioner “appears to have been for extraneous considerations and, possibly, for the known police proclivity to extort money by needlessly entangling citizens in criminal cases”.

SECTION 41A, CrPC

Section 41A. Notice of appearance before police officer. -

(1) The police officer shall], in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.

(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.

(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.

(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.

DECISION OF THE COURT

· Court has directed the Director General of Police to initiate inquiry against the concerned investigating officer, and also disciplinary proceedings of found necessary depending on his past conduct for similar feats.

· Since there was no material to proceed against the petitioner, the petitioner must not be disturbed in any manner whatsoever with regard to the case.

· The Division Bench of Justices Sanjib Bannerjee and Aniruddha Roy said that apparently, it is a case of extortion and harassment by an investigating officer and immediate appropriate disciplinary measures must be instituted against possible unruly conduct.

What do you think about the High Court’s decision? Let us know in the comments section below!