K.Muthulakshmi v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL.O.P.No.701 of 2022 K.Muthulakshmi ... Petitioner

Versus

1. State rep by the Superintendent of Police (North), Mettupalayam, Puducherry.

2. Thiru.Nagaraj Inspector of Police, D Nagar Police Station, Puducherry.

3. Thiru.Govidaraj Sub Inspector of police, D Nagar Police Station, Puducherry.

4. Thiru.Raji Head Constable-2317 of Police, D Nagar Police Station, Puducherry.

5. Thiru.Raja Police Constable-2961, D' Nagar Police Station, Puducherry.

6. Thiru.Hariprasath Police Constable-2961, D' Nagar Police Station, Puducherry.

7. Thiru.Jayakumar Police Constable-3368, D'Nagar Police Station, Puducherry.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the 1st respondent to register the case on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 14.07.2021 and take appropriate action against the respondents 2 to 7 in accordance with law in pursuant to the orders passed in Crl.M.P.4997 of 2021 dated 30.08.2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry.

For Petitioner :

Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondent :

Mr.V.Balamurugane No.1 Public Prosecutor (Pondy)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to direct the 1st respondent to register the case on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 14.07.2021, and take appropriate action against the respondents 2 to 7 in accordance with law in pursuant to the orders passed in Crl.M.P.4997 of 2021 dated 30.08.2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry.

2. The Petitioner had lodged a complaint against the respondents 2 to 7, for illegal detention of her son stating that on 08.03.2021 at 11.00 A.M., her son Ram Kumar was at their residence, the respondents 2 to 7 attached to D.Nagar Police station forcibly entered her house, dragged her son and taken him in a Jeep. Thereafter, beaten him black and blue and kept in illegal custody till 10.03.2021. Thereafter, on 10.03.2021, the Petitioner's son was taken to Auroville Police Station, Villupuram District, got registered a false case in Crime No.62 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 307 I.P.C. and he was produced before learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur and remanded to Judicial Custody.

It is further submitted that in the remand order, the learned Magistrate recorded that the petitioner's son was illtreated, severely beaten by the respondents 2 to 7. Hence, the petitioner made a complaint to the 1st respondent to take action against the respondents 2 to 7 on 14.07.2021. Since the accused persons happened to be the police officials and subordinates to the first respondent, the first respondent did not take any action against the respondents 2 to 7. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.4997 of 2021 for a direction to register a case on the complaint given by the petitioner and the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Puducherry by order dated 30.08.

register a case following the guidelines of Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and file a report without delay, but no action taken so far. Hence, the above petition.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor (Pondy) submitted that the petitioner's son is a history sheeter of D Nagar Police Station. He further submitted that neither the respondents 2 to 7 visited the petitioner's residence nor taken the petitioner's son Ramkumar on 08.03.2021, forcibly and kept him in illegal custody. He further submitted that in the wound certificate, there is no mention about any external injury, hence the allegation that the petitioner's son was illegally detained and attacked by the respondents 2 to 7 is false. He further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Vanur had herself visited the D Nagar Police Station on 09.03.2021, made entry in General Diary and Sentry Relief Register, that no one was illegally detained in police station, Lock Up.

He further submitted that around the residence of the petitioner CCTV cameras was available, which was verified by the Superintendent of Police, if the police personnel had really trespassed into her residence on 08.03.2021 and picked her son, the same will be recorded and the petitioner's house was installed with CCTV Camera, if the petitioner submits any such footage of recordings, the same shall be considered, no such recording so far submitted. He further submitted that the petitioner is not co-operating for enquiry and the allegations made against the respondents 2 to 7 are false. In support of his contentions, he produced the enquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (North), Puducherry along with supporting documents.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

4. A perusal of the records would go to show that pursuant to the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Puducherry, Superintendent of Police, Puducherry conducted enquiry, recorded the statement of the respondents 2 to 7. Further, perusal of wound certificate shows that there is no external injury, like wise in the O.P. slip, it is recorded that for the purpose of covid test he was produced and at that time, it was recorded that tenderness in both the arms and no bone injury. Further, in the Arrest/Court surrender Form, it is clearly mentioned that there is some swelling in the accused's left knee, which he had sustained when he fell down from two-wheeler earlier.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not served with the enquiry report. He further submitted that the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Police Complaints Authority 01.04.2022, headed by the retired High Court Judge of Madras High Court, who

passed an order on 04.01.2022, finding prima facie case made against the respondents therein, and directed the Director General of Police Puducherry to appoint Senior Superintendent of Police to conduct enquiry and take appropriate action and fix responsibility.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, Puducherry submitted that this Court had questioned the authenticity and authority of police complaint authority in passing such orders and giving direction, for which appeal filed and pending before the First Bench.

7. Be that as it may, now as per the directions of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I Puducherry, enquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police (North), Puducherry, finding the complaint dated 14.07.2021 is false and made to divert the investigation and to escape the petitioner's son from the legal process and proceedings.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the submission made, the learned Public Prosecutor, Puducherry is directed to serve copy of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner and thereafter it is open to her to agitate the same, in the manner known to law, if so advised. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar arr To

1. The Superintendent of Police, (North), Mettupalayam, Puducherry.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Puducherry.

+1cc to Mr.S.Doraisamy, Advocate, S.R.No.5008 CRL.O.P.No.701 of 2022 PA[co] NSK 09/03/2022