HC asks details of number of persons under police protection

Coming down heavily on the police for threatening a detenu instead of providing him protection, a division bench comprising Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice R Hemalatha, on suo motu impleading the Home Secretary, DGP and Commissioner of Police in the plea, posed a series of questions and sought them to respond by March 12.

The bench on noting that if such persons availing of police protection and indulging in such ‘Katta Panchayats’ is true, it is a serious issue and it must be stopped. “It is also stated that some people think that having a police guard is a matter of prestige and image-building exercise,” the bench said.

On the case in hand, a detenu was thrown out of his property and ill-treated by his son and relatives. But despite him giving a complaint to the police authorities on January 25 and subsequently on March 1 to the higher authorities, no action has come forth. On the other hand, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Soonambedu Police Station, practically threatened the detenu to settle the property in favour of his son.

Based on this, the bench, on taking strong exception to the Soonambedu police failing to respond on the senior citizen’s grievance despite a court notice being issued last Friday, said “It shows that the police authorities are not acting on complaints from the public and register the FIR generally but also fail to respond even to the court notices as seen by this court in many cases.”

“In this case, even the Public Prosecutors offices are unable to get necessary instruction from the police officials and it would go to show that the police are not responding the due process at all,” the bench led by Justice Kirubakaran held while directing the Soonambedu Police Inspector and sub-inspector to appear in person on March 12 and explain their failure to send instructions to the  Public Prosecutors office despite providing adequate time.

Also, on noting that the detenu was being threatened by the police themselves since his son, a rowdy element, was in close contact with the police, the bench in its interim order directed the police to provide police protection to the detenu.

“Though this court feels that it may not be possible for each and every citizen to give police protection whenever there is a problem, in the instant case, the police themselves are said to have threatened the detenu and, therefore, immediate police protection is ordered,’ the bench added.