Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

R.VINATHA versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


R.Vinatha v. The State of Tamil Nadu - Writ Petition (MD) No.10260 of 2006 [2007] RD-TN 31 (3 January 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 03/01/2007

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.KULASEKARAN

Writ Petition (MD) No.10260 of 2006

and

M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2006

R.Vinatha .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

rep. by its Secretary for Home,

Fort St.George,

Chennai-9.

2.The District Superintendent of Police,

Theni District.

3.The Inspector of Police,

Rayappanpatty Police Station,

Theni District.

Crime No.8 of 2006. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, for the issuance of writ of Declaration, declaring the FIR registered by the third respondent in Crime No.8 of 2006 as null and void of the constitution of India.

For Petitioner ... Mr. K.P.S. Palanivel Rajan For Respondents ... Mr. D. Sasikumar Government Advocate :O R D E R



The writ petition has been filed praying for a declaration to declare the First Information Report registered by the third respondent in Crime No.8 of 2006 as null and void of the constitution of India.

2. One T.Pommayan was the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9001 of 2005, has approached this Court, seeking a direction to the third respondent herein to register a case against Sri Ganga Motors which was allowed on 27.10.2005 permitting him to give a complaint against the said Ganga Motors with the third respondent. Accordingly the said Pommayan has approached the third respondent and gave a complaint against the said Sri Ganga Motors, in which the petitioner is one of the partners. The said complaint was taken on file by the third respondent and he proceeded further, which is challenged in this writ petition. It is to be remembered that the said T.Pommayan has not been arrayed as a party in this writ petition. It is also to be noted that the said complaint was lodged by T.Pommayan pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.9001 of 2005. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that after registration of the complaint, the petitioner has approached this Court for bail which was also granted to her.

3. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be committed. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case. But it cannot be said that an investigation must necessarily be permitted to continue and will not be prevented by the Court at the stage of investigation. Followed (State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others) AIR 1982 Supreme Court 949 wherein in Para No.64, it was held thus:-

"64. ....An investigation is carried on for the purpose of gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving an offence which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a proper investigation in the interest of justice becomes necessary to collect materials for establishing the offence, and for bringing the offender to book. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed....."

4. In other angle also, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court must have regard to the well established principles for the exercise of its writ jurisdiction and unless it is satisfied that the normal statutory remedy is likely to be too dilatory or difficult to give reasonably quick relief, it should be loath to act under Article 226. May be, in exceptional cases - the present one does not appears to be one - that extraordinary power may be exercised. Followed (The Asst. Collector of Central Excise vs. Jainson Hosiery Industries) AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1889 wherein in Para No.1, it was held thus:- "1. ....High Court must have regard to the well established principles for the exercise of its wrig jurisdiction and unless it is satisfied that the normal statutory remedy is likely to be too dilatory or difficult to give reasonably quick relief, it should be loath to act under Art.226. May be, in exceptional cases - the present one does not appear to be one - that extraordinary power may be exercised. So it is right to point out that the High Courts will be careful to be extremely circumspect in granting these reliefs especially during the pendency of criminal investigations. The investigation of a criminal offence is a very sensitive phase where the investigating authority has to collect evidence from all odd corners and anything that is likely to thwart its course may inhibit the interests of justice. All that we need say here is that the High Courts will bear in mind the need for extreme reluctance when, during the investigation, any relief, interim or final, which has a tendency to slow down or other wise hamper the investigation is sought."

5. In this case, this Court, in Crl.O.P. No. 9001 of 2005 permitted the said T. Pommayan to lodge a complaint with the third respondent and accordingly it was lodged. Thereafter, the complaint was registered by the third respondent based on the order passed by this Court, but the said T.Pommayan was not arrayed as a respondent in this case. Moreover, the investigation has been commenced by the investigating agency and any interference by this Court is likely to thwart its course may inhibit the interests of justice, besides, this Court finds no valid reason to quash the First Information Report.

6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. It is made clear that it is open to the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation in accordance with Law uninfluenced by this Order.

To

1.The Secretary for Home,

Fort St.George,

Chennai-9.

2.The District Superintendent of Police,

Theni District.

3.The Inspector of Police,

Rayappanpatty Police Station,

Theni District.




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.