HC questions genuineness of apology by cops in contempt case

Three police officers, facing contempt proceedings for arresting a magistrate in Coonoor on a rape complaint from a woman SI last year, today made an unconditional apology in the Madras High Court, but the court questioned its genuineness in view of their earlier affidavit defending the action.
The court has suo motu initiated contempt proceedings against the Superintendent of Police of Nilgiris District and two DSPs who arrested Coonoor Magistrate S Thangaraj on June 29, 2013.
The court had already framed three key issues against SP Ponni and the DSPs -- Suresh Kumar and C Pitchai -- and posted the matter for trial for today.

When the matter came up for hearing before a bench comprising Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice M. Sathyanarayanan, their senior counsel offered unconditional apology to the court.
However, questioning the apology, the bench pointed out that the three police officers in their affidavits tried to justify the arrest.
The judges said the SP had said in her affidavit that the arrest had to be made because the charges were grave and that the woman sub-inspector of police who lodged the rape complaint herself faced threat to her life.

The judges, noting that it was a quasi-judicial proceeding, said the three officers were free to adopt any form of defense during trial.

But now that they had specifically denied any wrong doing and pleaded not guilty, they could not tender 'unconditional apology' as it was self-contradictory.
They then asked the senior counsel to furnish a list of witnesses to be examined during trial.
Senior advocate Parthasarathy, who has been named as amicus curie in the case, said the SP must take responsibility for the whole episode.
He was asked by the court to file necessary requests for summoning the judicial officers required to be examined in the case.
The judges, making it clear that they would not venture into the facts of the case, said the proceedings would decide whether the police officers willfully violated the mandatory Supreme Court judgments covering the issue (arrest of judicial officers).

"It will be on procedural lapses," the bench said, adding that no one would be permitted to rake up facts connected to the alleged rape charges and the arrest of the magistrate. They then adjourned the matter to August 7.