Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.NARAYANASAMY versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.Narayanasamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu - Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1968 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1328 (9 April 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 09/04/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1968 of 2007

A.Narayanasamy ... Petitioner Vs

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

represented by

The Home Secretary,

Government of Tamil Nadu,

St. George Fort,

Chennai.

2.The Superintendent of Police,

Superintendent Office,

Madurai.

3.The Superintendent of Police (CBCID),

Superintendent Office,

Narimedu,

Madurai.

4.Sahila,

The Sub Inspector of Police,

Koodal Puthur Police Station,

Madurai.

5.Maruthamuthu,

Head Constable,

Koodal Puthur Police Station,

Madurai.

6.Ganesan,

Constable,

Koodal Puthur Police Station,

Madurai.

7.Shagayaraj,

Constable No.1456,

Koodal Puthur Police Station,

Madurai.

8.The Inspector of Police,

Koodal Puthur Police Station,

Madurai. ... Respondents Prayer

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the first respondent to pay a compensation to the petitioner and direct the second respondent to depute an independent police officer to register a case on the petitioner's complaint dated 15.01.2007, and investigate the same as per law within a time frame.

For Petitioner : T.Lajapathi Roy

For Respondents: Mr.L.Murugan,

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 to R3.

Mr.R.Anand for R4 to R7.

:ORDER



This petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner and to direct the second respondent to depute an independent police officer to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 15.01.2007, and investigate the same as per law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition as stood exposited from the records and from the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner could be summarised thus:

It so happened that there was some heap of sand in front of the house of the petitioner on 11.01.2007. Thereupon, the police officials namely, R.4 the Sub Inspector of Police and R.5 the Head Constable, who were on rounds, took exception to it and called upon the petitioner herein to remove it immediately, for which the petitioner has given a reply to the effect that his daughter being a Civil Engineer could come and remove it. Being not satisfied with such a reply, R.4 and R.5 manhandled the petitioner and his son Sudhakar and thereby caused injuries to them. Over and above that, the police also went to the extent of registering a case in Cr.No.14 of 2007 as against both of them for the offences punishable under Sections 294(B), 353 and 506(ii) I.P.C and the police took them into custody and produced before the learned Magistrate concerned before whom they also complained about the atrocities perpetrated by the police. But, they wee remanded and subsequently released on bail. The petitioner's daughter Parimala in the mean while lodged a complaint with the second respondent on 15.01.2007 to register a case and investigate into the matter as against the police officials. But, it has not seen the light of the day. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was no response at all for that complaint and that alone necessitate the petitioner to file this petition.

3. The learned Counsel for R.4 to R.7 would gainsay and counter the allegations on the side of the petitioner by making his submissions as under:

4. The police personnel did not in any way indulge in any atrocities warranting interference either by the Human Rights Commission or by this Court. However for the purpose of camouflaging and concealing the acts of the petitioner and his son and by way of counter-blasting the case filed by the police, the complaint dated 15.01.2007 came to be lodged by Parimala, the daughter of the petitioner. It is the case of the police officials that the petitioner is bent upon to prevent R.4 the Sub Inspector of Police from getting regularised in her post by indulging in such complaints to the Human Rights Commission as well as to the superior police officers. The learned Counsel for R.4 to R.7 would submit that the injured petitioner went to the extent of giving three different versions one before the Magistrate at the time of he having been produced for remand, the next one before the Doctor and the third one before the Human Rights Commission.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that earlier the Inspector of Police concerned looked into the matter and arrived at the conclusion that it is a false complaint dated 15.01.2007, lodged by the said Parimala, for which the learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that without examining the petitioner and his witnesses, how it will lie in the mouth of the police to say that the police enquired into that complaint and referred the matter as false.

6. The petitioner's grievance is that he and his son were manhandled for no good reason by the police and that despite running pillar to post, no fruitful or significant action has been taken by any authority. The very submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would make me to think that the Inspector of Police who dealt with the matter has not done it properly, because there is genuine grievance on the side of the petitioner. The petitioner and his witnesses were not examined. In this context, necessarily that complaint should be dealt with properly.

7. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the Superintendent of Police namely, the second respondent is the competent person to enquire into the matter as against the police officials. The second respondent shall do well to see that he is examining the petitioner and his witnesses, in addition to examine the police officials as against whom the complaint was lodged and shall deal with the matter keeping in mind Section 154 Cr.P.C and the dictum of the Honourable Apex Court in Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1 and arrive at the conclusion. Whatever be the decision taken by him, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner in writing and if the petitioner is not satisfied with that decision, it is open for the petitioner to move before the Magistrate Court as per law. The prayer for compensation is a prematured one and no compensation could be awarded at this stage.

8. With the above direction, this petition is closed.

rsb

To

1.The Home Secretary,

Government of Tamil Nadu,

St. George Fort,

Chennai.

2.The Superintendent of Police,

Superintendent Office,

Madurai.

3.The Superintendent of Police (CBCID),

Superintendent Office,

Narimedu,

Madurai.

4.The Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai. 


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.