Hyderabad: Telangana high court has recently held that non-compliance with Section 41-A of the CrPC while investigating criminal cases, and failure to preserve CCTV footage (at police stations during the investigation procedures) as mandated by the apex court, raise serious concerns regarding procedural safeguards and accountability.Justice N Tukaramji, while dismissing criminal petitions filed by two police officers seeking to quash criminal cases against them said that the issues relating to registering a case, the applicability of the Information Technology Act, and the jurisdiction of the petitioners in initiating the crime proceedings, involve mixed questions of law and fact, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage, thereby allowing the proceedings against the police officers to continue in the respective trial courts.The petitioners — Namindla Shankar, station house officer of Begum Bazar police station and sub-inspector Rupavath Pavan, who had previously worked in the same police station and is currently posted at Bandlaguda police station — approached the court to quash the cases registered against them for allegedly illegally detaining advocate Vijay Gopal at the police station without an FIR.Though the petitioners contended that the allegations against them were false and that they had summoned Vijay Gopal in a case as a part of their official duties, the court pointed out several procedural lapses.Dismissing the petitions recently, Justice N Tukaramji said such acts raise serious concerns regarding procedural safeguards and accountability, and prima facie disclose the ingredients of cognizable offences such as wrongful confinement and misuse of authority.The case against Vijay Gopal pertains to his alleged social media posts criticising prohibitory orders in connection with the public examinations, and his comments on a news article in 2023.Vijay Gopal argued that he was unlawfully detained at the police station for several hours before registration of the FIR, rendering such detention unconstitutional and without legal authority.He further contended that no valid notice was served on him and that police obtained acknowledgement of the notice under coercion, amounting to wrongful confinement and cannot be treated as acts performed in discharge of official duty.The court, on examining the material, found that the allegations of illegal detention prior to registration of FIR, coercion in obtaining acknowledgement under Section 41-A CrPC, and abuse of police authority, if accepted as true, prima facie disclose the ingredients of cognizable offences such as wrongful confinement and misuse of authority.Regarding protection for the petitioners, the court, relying on precedent apex court rulings, noted that such protection is available only when the allegations bear a reasonable nexus with official duty. “Acts which are manifestly illegal or constitute abuse of authority that falls outside its scope,” the court noted.The court further pointed out that in the present case, allegations of illegal detention and coercion, if established, cannot be said to be acts done in lawful discharge of official duties.
