RE: [in] Police will have to co-operate

[Guest guest]

This is all too often encountered in Hong Kong as well. I myself has

loooooooooots of such experience with dealing with police in animal abuse

cases.

 

 

 

Very good reference for us.

 

Thank you!!

 

 

 

_____

 

aapn [aapn ] On Behalf Of Manoj

Oswal

Monday, August 18, 2008 8:18 PM

aapn

[in] Police will have to co-operate

 

 

 

Till now, one of the most common complaint by the animal activists is,

no co-operation by the police authorities.

 

In a land mark judgment by the Supreme Court of India, where in it has

stated that if the police fail to lodge an FIR and take appropriate

action, they may be suspended and sent to Jail by the Magistrate /

Metropolitan magistrate.

 

http://www.supremec

<http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/wr6808%2008_08_2008.pdf>

ourtofindia.nic.in/wr6808%2008_08_2008.pdf

 

It is sincere suggestion that all of us should keep a print copy of

this judgment in our purse / car / two wheeler.

 

---- snip ---

" appropriate steps in case of any inaction on the part of the

concerned officer of the police station in instituting a case and the

Chief Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case

may be, shall take action in a case of inaction upon filing of

complaint petition and give direction to institute the case within the

time directed in the said order failing which the Chief Judicial

Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall

not only initiate action against the delinquent police officer but

punish them suitably by sending them to jail, in case the cause shown

is found to be unsatisfactory. Apart from this, the Chief Judicial

Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall

report the matter to the disciplinary authority at once by fax as well

upon receipt of which the disciplinary authority shall suspend the

concerned police officer immediately in contemplation of departmental

proceeding. "

 

OUT-TODAY

ITEM NO.62 COURT NO.2 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.68 OF 2008

LALITA KUMARI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

GOVT.OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)

 

(With appln.(s) for intervention and office report)

08/08/2008 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. AGRAWAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.B. Upadhyay,Sr.Adv.

Mr. B.K. Shahi,Adv.

Mr. B.P. Gupta,Adv.

Mr. Pranesh,Adv.

Ms. Mona Rajvanshi,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv.

For Intervenor(s) Mr. S.P. Juneja,Adv.

Mr. Debasis Misra,Adv.

For Mizoram: Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv.

Mr. M.K. Michael,Adv.

For Gujarat: Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.

Ms. Pinky,Adv.

Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv.

Mr. Somnath,Adv.

For Maharashtra: Mr. Ravindra K. Adsure,Adv.

For N.C.T. of Delhi: Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv.

Ms. Sadhana Sandhu,Adv.

Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.

For Punjab: Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.

....2/-

- 2 -

For Manipur: Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh,Adv.

Mr. David Rao,Adv.

Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv.

Mr. Vijay Prakash,Adv.

For Assam: Mr. Avijit Roy,Adv.

for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs.

For Uttar Pradesh: Ms. Shobha Dikshit,Sr.Adv.

Mr. T.N. Singh,Adv.

Mr. Rajeev Dubey,Adv.

Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv.

For Karnataka: Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv.

For Tamil Nadu and Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.

U.T. Pondicherry: Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv.

Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

By order dated 14th July, 2008, we issued notices to the Chief

Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and Director

Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be, to

show cause as to why the directions enumerated therein be not given by

this Court. Notices were sent to the aforesaid authorities by the

Supreme Court Registry by fax and it was mentioned in the notices that

the order has been put on the website of the Supreme Court of India so

that they may file responses without loss of time. The order was put

on the website of the Supreme Court of India, as directed by this Court.

It appears that notices have been served upon the Chief Secretaries of

all the States and Union Territories and all the Director Generals of

Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be,

....3/-

- 3 -

but, in spite of that, it is pathetic state of affairs that only two

States, viz., States of Uttar Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh, have

responded and the other States did not bother to file their responses.

Some of them have simply engaged their counsel, who are appearing in

court, and, as usual, they have made prayer for time to file responses.

In spite of the order passed on 14th July, 2008, that we intend to

give certain directions enumerated therein, it is unfortunate that

neither the Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police, as

the case may be, nor the Superintendents of Police has taken any steps

by giving suitable directions to the officers in-charge of the police

stations. In view of this, we direct the Chief Secretaries of all the

States and Union Territories

and Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case

may be, to see that the police officers posted in every police station

throughout the country should act in accordance with the order dated

14th July, 2008, treating the proposed directions therein given by

this Court to be the interim ones and, in case there is any failure on

the part of any police officer, the concerned authority shall take

immediate action against that officer.

In any view of the matter, we grant two weeks' time by way of last

chance to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union

Territories, except Chief Secretaries and Director Generals of Police

of the States of Uttar Pradesh

....4/-

- 4 -

and Arunachal Pradesh, as well as Directors General of

Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be, to file responses

failing which they shall have to appear in court in-person on the next

date fixed in this case. As all the States and Union Territories are

represented before this Court, it was not necessary for the Registry

to communicate this order to the Chief Secretaries or Directors

General of Police/Commissioners of Police, as the case may be.

Nonetheless, the Registry is directed to communicate this order by fax

as well to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union

Territories and all the Director Generals of Police/ Commissioners of

Police, as the case may be,

Let order dated 14th July, 2008, and this order be put on the website

of the Supreme Court of India so that the people of India may know

what directions have been given by this Court and they may take

appropriate steps in case of any inaction on the part of the concerned

officer of the police station in instituting a case and the Chief

Judicial Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be,

shall take action in a case of inaction upon filing of complaint

petition and give direction to institute the case within the time

directed in the said order failing which the Chief Judicial

Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall

not only initiate action against the delinquent police officer but

punish them suitably by sending them to jail, in case the cause shown

is found to be unsatisfactory. Apart from this, the Chief Judicial

Magistrate/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, shall

....5/-

- 5 -

report the matter to the disciplinary authority at once by fax as well

upon receipt of which the disciplinary authority shall suspend the

concerned police officer immediately in contemplation of departmental

proceeding.

Place the matter on 25th August, 2008.

[ T.I. Rajput ] [ Om Prakash ]

A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

OUT-TODAY

ITEM NO.62-A COURT NO.2 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.68 OF 2008

LALITA KUMARI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

GOVT.OF U.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)

(With appln.(s) for intervention and office report)

08/08/2008 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. AGRAWAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.B. Upadhyay,Sr.Adv.

Mr. B.K. Shahi,Adv.

Mr. B.P. Gupta,Adv.

Mr. Pranesh,Adv.

Ms. Mona Rajvanshi,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv.

For Intervenor(s) Mr. S.P. Juneja,Adv.

Mr. Debasis Misra,Adv.

For Mizoram: Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv.

Mr. M.K. Michael,Adv.

For Gujarat: Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.

Ms. Pinky,Adv.

Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,Adv.

Mr. Somnath,Adv.

For Maharashtra: Mr. Ravindra K. Adsure,Adv.

For N.C.T. of Delhi: Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv.

Ms. Sadhana Sandhu,Adv.

Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.

For Punjab: Mr. Ajay Pal,Adv.

....2/-

- 2 -

For Manipur: Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh,Adv.

Mr. David Rao,Adv.

Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv.

Mr. Vijay Prakash,Adv.

For Assam: Mr. Avijit Roy,Adv.

for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs.

For Uttar Pradesh: Ms. Shobha Dikshit,Sr.Adv.

Mr. T.N. Singh,Adv.

Mr. Rajeev Dubey,Adv.

Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv.

For Karnataka: Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv.

For Tamil Nadu and Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.

U.T. Pondicherry: Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv.

Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv.

For Haryana: Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv.

Mr. T.V. George,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Let a copy of the order passed today and order dated 14th July, 2008,

both of which have been put on the website, be sent to the Registrar

Generals of all the High Courts and Registrar (Admn.) of the Orissa

High Court, by fax as well, for communicating the same to all the

Sessions Judges, who shall, in their turn, communicate it to all the

Magistrates within their respective districts.

[ T.I. Rajput ] [ Om Prakash ]

A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar