What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court recently emphasized that once an interim order restraining coercive action is passed, filing a charge sheet in a criminal case violates judicial directives. This observation came while a bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih discharged contempt notices against three Jharkhand Police officers who had tendered unconditional apologies for such an act.
The case revolved around Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) Deepak Kumar, Investigating Officer (IO) Tarkeshwar Prasad Kesari, and Station House Officer (SHO) Dayanand Kumar. They had filed a charge sheet despite the Court’s interim order prohibiting any further action. Accepting their apologies, the bench directed the Jharkhand State Police to revise its 2011 directive that erroneously justified filing charge sheets under similar circumstances.
The officers had relied on a letter dated April 15, 2011, issued by the then Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) in Jharkhand. This letter asserted that a court order restraining coercive action against an accused did not preclude the filing of a charge sheet. However, the Supreme Court found this interpretation to be “completely illegal.”
ALSO READ: IndiGo challenges Mahindra Electric over ‘6E’ trademark usage – THE NEW INDIAN
“If a charge sheet is filed based on this directive against an accused protected by an order restraining coercive action, the concerned officer exposes themselves to contempt jurisdiction,” the Court observed. Advocate Vishnu Sharma, representing the State, was instructed to ensure that the ADGP modifies the directive in accordance with the Court’s observations.
Case Background
This matter stemmed from a landlord-tenant dispute. The tenant, the wife of the then Director General of Police (DGP) of Jharkhand, had filed an FIR against her landlord’s family alleging forced entry, property damage, and physical assault. The landlord argued that the FIR was retaliatory, following an eviction process initiated against the tenant.
In August 2023, the Supreme Court passed an interim order barring the police from proceeding with the case against the landlord. However, a charge sheet was filed on September 30, 2023, despite this order. Earlier, in April 2023, another violation occurred when a proclamation against the petitioner was published, defying a 2017 High Court interim order prohibiting coercive action.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court acquits death row convict citing trial irregularities – THE NEW INDIAN
On October 1, 2024, the Court issued contempt notices to the three police officers for their actions. The officers appeared before the bench in November 2024, explaining their actions through affidavits and tendering apologies. Acknowledging their apologies and intent to comply with judicial orders, the Court discharged the contempt notices, directing no further action against the officers.
The Supreme Court’s firm stance on the matter underscores the importance of strict adherence to judicial orders and highlights the consequences of misinterpreting such directives.
