Rahul Kumar

272 Posts


Reader Blogs are not moderated, Jagran is not responsible for the views, opinions and content posted by the readers.
blogid : 8093 postid : 1124321


Posted On 20 Dec, 2015 Others में

  • SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Umapathy BE
December 17 at 9:36am ·
Due credit has been given to me, by Rahul Kumar ,who himself is an authority on Police-Legal reforms. Happy to be associated with, such brilliant mind. He is also compassionate to needy litigants, who are in need of his help.
After long deliberations, and intensive judicial scrutiny, Complaint Authority has been incorporated.
Kerala and Goa have successfully implemented, bringing massive relief to Aam admi.
Goa Police had to face the brunt, and try to neutralize it. Since Goans had tasted freedom from ” tyrannical & highly corrupt ” Police, they retained original by all available methods ( media pressure, legal battles, legislative pressure etc.)
CHRI has been a repository of all documentation in Police Reforms.

Rahul Kumar
December 15 at 9:37pm ·
I have made a comparative study on relevant provisions and need of provisions pertaining to remedy against misconduct of police officers in the course of discussion on facebook with Hon’ble Dr Umapathy BE Sir,Retired DGP of Karnataka. The basis of this discussion was my one previous facebook post which was connected to legal assistance sought by a facebook friend of Uttarpradesh as to making complaint against the former Investigating Officers of his case who fabricated false reports,which were later found false by the Crime Branch.
A report of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative of Sept 2010 reveals that the Police Complaints Authority has not been constituted by the Govt of Uttarpradesh in compliance with the directive No.6 among total seven directives issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors,Writ Petition (Civil) No.310 of 1996,order of dt.22/09/2006. So,that person of Uttarpradesh would not be able to lodge complaint before the Police Complaints Authority.
In accordance with the directive of the Supreme Court,the Police Complaints Authority at the state level is to be constituted to enquire into public complaints relating to serious misconduct including custodial death,custodial rape and grievous hurt caused by Police Officers of and above the rank of Deputy Superintendent Of Police whereas the Police Complaints Authority at District level is to be constituted to enquire into public complaints of above three cases as well as cases of extortion,land/house grabbing and serious abuse of authority caused by the Police Officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent Of Police.
As per directive,if the Police Complaints Authority would exist in Uttarpradesh,then the Complaint of that person would be enquired by district level because former Investigating Officers of his case were below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Since his complaint would be related to fabricating false reports,the complaint would be filed on the ground of serious abuse of authority.It ought to be noted that the Serious Abuse Of Authority has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court in its order in Prakash Singh Case.So,the Police Complaints Authority would enquire into his complaint or not,nothing can be said.If the authority would enquire,then also we can’t ignore amendments sought by me to establish procedures like section 340 CrPC read with section 195 CrPC also in offences of section 166,167,217,218,219 and 220 IPC because if such offences are provided under IPC,then procedures for making complaint of such offences ought to have been provided under CrPC.As per directive,the Police Complaints Authority can only recommend to lodge FIR,can’t make complaint directly to the court for taking cognizance.Further offences u/s 166,167,217,218,220 IPC etc are of such nature that only the court deciding the matter can decide properly about these offences because the court is the final decision making authority of the matter, not the Police Complaints Authority.
So,i am of the considered opinion that the Police Complaints Authority must be provided powers to enquire into all sorts of complaints against police including those u/s 166,167,217,218 IPC etc as well as amendments like provisions contained u/s 340 CrPC r/w section 195 CrPC be made for establishing procedures for making complaints u/s 166,167,217,218,220 IPC etc and the Police Complaints Authority be also provided powers after amendments to make complaint directly to the Court.
Police Acts only provide departmental punishments.Section 29 of the Bihar Police Act,2007 is identical to section 7 of the Century-old Police Act,1861 which provide Departmental punishments against police personnel.Section 26 of the Bihar Police Act confers power to the Bihar State Human Rights Commission to investigate complaint against violation of human rights by the police personnel. Section 60 of the Bihar Police Act confers power to the District Accountability Authority to monitor complaint pertaining to disciplinary proceedings against police personnel within a district.Uttarpradesh Govt has yet not enacted special police act like Bihar.Uttarpradesh Govt has only amended certain provisions of central act of 1861 vide amendment of 1939 and 1952.Except Departmental proceedings,nothing about criminal proceedings has been provided in the Police Act.
Procedures for implementation of provisions of the IPC can’t be provided in the Police Act.Such procedures can only be provided in the CrPC.That’s why procedures like section 340 CrPC read with Section 195 CrPC should also be provided for offences u/s 166,167,168,217,218,219 IPC and even u/s 220 IPC.Only then Corrupt police men and judicial officers can be prosecuted and punished in a convenient manner.
It is right that State Human Rights Commission can even direct to lodge FIR against police men even under sections discussed above but there is difference between lodging FIR before Police and Forwarding Complaint before court.Forwarded complaint is just like charge sheet upon which the court can take cognizance.Further when the matter becomes sub judice,Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction to hear such matter.Many cases become sub judice at the time of passing order by the Human Rights Commission.Further a single commission can’t hear expeditiously and judiciously a lot of such cases of state.So every court discussed in my that previous status should be empowered by inserting specific procedures in the CrPC.Further people will be motivated to fight against corrupt police personnel and judicial officers if specific privisions are made.
It is also pertinent to mention that the Human Rights Commission be provided powers to make complaint under above sections directly to the court empowered to take cognizable under above sections instead of directing to lodge FIR after this amendment suggested by me.
You and 3 others like this.

Amitabh Sandi
Unlike · Reply · 2 · December 17 at 9:39am
Umapathy BE
Umapathy BE Amitabh Sandi
Rahul Kumar
I found a solution to this in Whistleblower Protection Act.
Invoke that. ” serious abuse of authority ” has been clarified in this Act.
It is simply brilliant.!
” wilful misuse of discretion ” is the word. Fabricating false criminal case, fetches a big bounty ( money, power, etc.) to Indian Police.
This power to ” plant evidence “, manufacture” is nothing but,
” wilful misuse of discretion “.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · December 17 at 9:53am · Edited

Rahul Kumar replied · 1 Reply
Rahul Kumar
Rahul Kumar Hon’ble Sir Wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion as enshrined under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act,2011 may have same meaning like Wilful Abuse Of Authority. In accordance with the Directives of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh Case,we are here concerned with the Serious Abuse Of Authority.So,when wilful misuse/abuse of power/discretion/authority converts into serious misuse/abuse of power/discretion/authority needs to be interpreted.Neither the Whistle Blowers Protection Act,2011, nor the Directives of Supreme Court in Prakash Singh Case explains the meaning of serious in this pretext. In my opinion,every wilful misuse/abuse of power/discretion/authority is itself serious.You have also stated wilful abuse as serious abuse,i appreciate your interpretation and agree.But,nothing can be said about those who sit on the chair to redress grievances against police officers that they will consider every wilful abuse as serious abuse. While declaring section 66A of the Information Technology Act,2000 unconstitutional,the Supreme Court ,inter alia, considered vague meaning of the term Groosly Offensive.It was very difficult to differentiate between Offensive and Groosly Offensive. Similarly,when a wilful abuse converts into serious abuse is not very easy to differentiate.So,the meaning of serious abuse of authority is vague like Groosly offensive. The Supreme Court ought to interpret that every wilful abuse of authority is serious abuse of authority.Only then a complainant can get redress after aporoaching to the Police Complaints Authority in case like manufacturing false reports by a police officer.
Like · Reply · December 17 at 6:12pm
Umapathy BE
Umapathy BE Amitabh Sandi
Rahul Kumar
This is “Intensive Judicial Scrutiny”.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · December 17 at 7:05pm

Rahul Kumar replied · 1 Reply

Posted by Rahul Kumar at 02:47 No comments:


Rate this Article:

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

0 प्रतिक्रिया

  • SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Post a Comment



नवीनतम प्रतिक्रियाएंLatest Comments

topic of the week

latest from jagran