No provision in CrPC for making representation to police: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 15

In a significant judgment liable to change the way representations by the ‘aggrieved’ are decided by the police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not contain any provision allowing such pleas to be made to the law enforcement agency.

The Bench has also made it clear that a police officer cannot be convicted for contempt of court following his failure to comply with the directions on deciding the pleas. The court’s observation is significant as it has given rise to a crucial question about the extent of judicial authority in directing the police to deal with the grievances contained in the representations and take action in instances of non-compliance with such directives. Orders of such nature, directing decisions on representations by police authorities, are routinely issued in a multitude of cases every day.

The assertions by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the high court came on a petition alleging contempt of court filed by Balwant Singh against Ludhiana Commissioner of Police Kuldeep Singh Chahal. The high court had in February disposed of a plea filed by the petitioner with a direction to consider and decide his applications in accordance with law within two months. Balwant had moved the high court again alleging non-compliance of the direction.

Taking up the matter, Justice Sehrawat observed that the contempt petition was filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for disobeying order dated February 12 passed in the related matter.

Issuing notice of motion to the respondent police officer, Justice Sehrawat took on record Punjab Deputy Advocate-General’s submission that the representation made by the petitioner had been considered and necessary action transferring an inquiry in a matter had already been taken.

After going through the documents and the submission, Justice Sehrawat asserted: “There is no provision for making representation to the police under any provision of the CrPC. Therefore, whether the court could have passed an order for considering that representation and passing an order; de hors ordering any investigation in the matter, as such, per se is a moot point; for which no person can be convicted, as such”.