High Time To Effectively Digitise Investigation Agencies, IT Wing Of Tamil Nadu Police Still In Premature Stage: Madras High Court

“However, the ground reality appears to be otherwise. A complainant has to knock the doors of this court at every stage. Even for receipt of a complaint by the Station House Officer, registration of FIR thereupon, conducting of fair investigation, filing of final report within a time frame and for every such normal procedural aspects, the poor litigants are being constrained to approach the courts seeking necessary directions. The worst scenario is that such directions are not being scrupulously followed, resulting in a plethora of contempt petitions, at every stage,” the court said.

The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by J Manohar Dass against the Koyambedu Police for failing to file a final report in a cheating case even after court order. The complaint was lodged by Dass in 2020. Since the FIR was not pursued by the police even after 1.5 years, Dass approached the High Court seeking directions to the police to conduct enquiry and file final report. When the case was heard by the court, the Government Advocate assured that the final report would be filed within 2 months, following which the petition was closed. However, since the final report was not filed even after 2 years, Dass approached the High court with the contempt petition.

When the contempt petition was taken up, the Government Advocate submitted that after the court's order, the Station House Officer was transferred within a short time, and there were many transfers subsequently which led to lapses in filing the final report. The court was also informed that a Standard Operating Procedure has been put in place at the instance of the State Public Prosecutor, Hassan Mohamed Jinnah, prescribing specific time limit for processing cases at each level.

The court noted that the SOP addressed only the follow up action after judicial intervention to prevent contempt petition and predicament of the courts. The court noted that the SOP did not address the course of action to be adopted on receipt of complaint.

The court also observed that the transfer of investigating officers was incidental to their service and could not be taken as a ground for delay of investigation in a criminal case.

“It is relevant to note that the transfer of investigating officers would, if at all, be certainly incidental to their service and it cannot be taken as a ground for the delay of investigation in criminal cases. Moreover, such transfers of investigating officers are only within the realm of their higher officials. Whileso, it would be an indigestible justification for the delay or inaction on the part of the investigating officers in proceeding with the investigation of complaints lodged with them,” the court said.

The court added that in this AI era, the investigating officers could digitise everything at every stage of the investigation. The court noted that at present, the Information & Technology wing of the Tamil Nadu police lagged behind and was still in a premature stage. Considering the same, the court directed the police to complete the CCTNS 2.0 project within 4 months which would facilitate the services offered through the Inter-Operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) platform. The court added that any delay would have to be reported with valid justification.

The court also directed the Director General of Police and the Home Department to ensure full implementation of the SOP and asked the Police Commissioners and Superintendents of Police to conduct periodical reviews of time bound court directions and to ensure digital tracking of compliance.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. Kannan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Hasan Mohammed Jinnah State Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. S. Santhosh, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Case Title: J Manohar Dass v. Komathi and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 164

Case No: Contempt Petition No.2864 of 2024