The Andhra Pradesh police on Wednesday got a major relief from the Supreme Court which stayed the verdict of the high court making it mandatory for registration of First Investigation Report against the police officers for the death caused to any person during the discharge of official duties including encounters.
A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan stayed the five-judge bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court when the petition in this regard was mentioned by senior advocate Harish Salve.
Salve, appearing for the Andhra Pradesh Police Officers Association, assailed the verdict of the full bench, saying if such directions are passed then all police officers involved in thwarting attack on the Parliament and the National Security Guard commandos who killed the terrorists involved in Mumbai terror attacks would have to face criminal cases.
"If this law is to be considered, then all police officers would be made accused," he said before the bench, also comprising of Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal.
Referring to the February 6 directions of the High Court, Salve said "This would mean that no action could be taken against the terrorists and subversive elements."
The High Court had passed the directions on a case relating to the killings of eight Maoists in 2006 by the special unit of Andhra Pradesh police which has been constituted to combat naxalites.
The apex court issued notice to Andhra Pradesh government and a Non Government Organisation on whose petition the high court had passed the order.
The high court had directed that where police officer causes death of a person acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duties or in self defence as the case may be, the FIR relating to such circumstance may be registered and investigation shall follow without proper appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case.
The association has raised nine questions of law for consideration by the apex court. The most important point raised by the association is whether police officers are entitled to claim protection under various provisions of CrPC against investigation and prosecution including in appropriate cases the offences of culpable homicide that may be launched against him.
Further, whether in the event of any injury or death to a person arising out of exchange of fire between such arrested person and police officers, the only defence available to police officers is on the ground of private defence and no other defence.
The association challenged the findings of the high court that a magisterial enquiry is neither a substitute nor an alternative to the obligation to record the information as FIR and to conduct investigation into the facts and circumstances of the case.
