Madras High Court lays down strict rules to prevent police harassment during probes, acting on a plea by Rippling co-founder Prasanna Sankaranarayanan. The case gained attention after he accused his wife of misusing police power amid a custody battle.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court took an important step to stop unnecessary police harassment during criminal investigations. On March 27, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan gave some strong directions in a legal case filed by Prasanna Sankaranarayanan, co-founder of the company Rippling.
He had approached the Court saying that the police were troubling him again and again. He alleged that his estranged wife, Dhivya Sashidhar, was using the police to harass him.
The Court seriously looked into his complaint and warned the police not to misuse their power. The Court said clearly:
“This Court, exercising its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, normally would not interfere with the investigation conducted by a police officer. Nevertheless, it would also not turn a blind eye to instances of harassment by the police under the guise of investigation is brought to its notice.”
The Court also shared that the meaning of harassment can be different for different people. It said:
“What could be harassment to the petitioners may not be the same to the police officer.”
After this, the Court laid out general guidelines that police should follow, so that no one is unnecessarily troubled during an investigation. These rules are to prevent misuse of police power and make sure that people are treated properly.
The guidelines given by the Court are:
- If police want to call someone mentioned in a criminal complaint or any witness, they must send a written notice under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). This notice must include the date and time when the person has to come to the police station.
- Whatever happens during the enquiry must be written properly in the police station’s diary or records.
- The police officer must not harass the person who comes for enquiry or investigation.
- Police must strictly follow the rules laid out in the famous Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh case, especially about when to do preliminary enquiry and when to file an FIR.
This matter became popular on social media after Prasanna Sankaranarayanan made a post on X (formerly Twitter). In his post, he claimed that his wife filed false police cases to take away their son from him and to leave the country, while their divorce and child custody matters were still going on.
A few days earlier, he had filed a petition in the High Court, saying that the Tamil Nadu police were troubling him repeatedly and were trying to separate him from his son because of a fake kidnapping case his wife had filed.
He told the Court that on March 7, the police tried to enter his hotel room to take his child away, but by then he had already left the room, so they couldn’t find him.
He also alleged that between March 12 and March 21, the police went to meet his mother and his friend, Gokul S, to find out where he was.
According to him, even after showing the police via video call that the child was safe and happy with him, they didn’t stop troubling him.
He added that the police even detained his friend Gokul S at the police station for many days without any FIR, just to pressurize him to give away the child.
He said all this happened because of a false complaint by his wife, just to gain advantage in the legal fight over divorce and custody. He told the Court that his wife had also tried to file fake cases in the US and Singapore, but she failed.
However, Dhivya Sashidhar, his wife, denied all these allegations. As per a report by Financial Express, she said that the kidnapping case was not false, and that she only filed it to find her missing son. She also claimed that she and her son were forcefully brought to India from Singapore by Prasanna, and that he had a criminal background. She also said this was connected to a property dispute.
After hearing everything, the Madras High Court disposed of the petition on March 27, but it also made sure to issue strong guidelines so that no person is harassed by police in the name of investigation.
In the case, Senior Advocates A Ramesh and Geeta Luthra, along with lawyers Aadarsh Kothari, Ashwini Ramesh, Deepika Murali, Anila Rajendran, Karthik Sundaram, Nivea SR, Harinarayanan K, and Raja M appeared for Prasanna Sankaranarayanan.
The State of Tamil Nadu was represented by Government Advocate A Gopinath.
CASE TITLE:
Prasanna Sankaranarayanan v. State.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
