The Madras High Court today rejected a plea of four petitioners, against whom a case was registered under Dowry Harassment Act, to direct police not to "harass" them, saying that this question does not arise once an FIR is filed because the expression 'harassment' is so subjective it cannot be encapsulated in an objective criteria.
Justice P N Prakash, dismissing their plea against the Inspector of a police station in Kanyakumari, said it was for police to make a preliminary enquiry if they doubt the bonafides of a complaint. When a direction was issued to enquire the case, police would have to call the adverse party for enquiry.
But the adverse party then files a 'not to harass' petition, leaving police in a quandary. Once an FIR is registered, the investigation had to go through the mandates laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code, the judge said.
"The expression harassment is so subjective it cannot be encapsulated in an objective criteria," Justice Prakash said.
He recalled that the Supreme Courthad observed that in matrimonial offences, police are indiscriminately arresting all and sundry and that the provision of arrest as amended in 2008 and 2010 was expatiated to control such arrests.
The SC had stated that guidelines would apply to IPC offences where punishment is seven years and less. It had not imposed a complete ban on arrests and only qualified it by expounding on the spirit behind existing provisions.
"In this case, it is not open to the court to issue such a direction on the promise that statuory authority will not follow the statute and he (police) has to be goaded by the court," the judge said and dismissed the plea.
