High Court Of Madras v. The Director General Of Police And 9 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.09.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Cont.P.No.2567 of 2022 In W.P.No.33916 of 2017 High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104 .... Applicant Vs.

1.The Director General of Police, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

2.Mr.Arun Sakthi Kumar, Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District Tirunelveli

3. Mr. Kumar Deputy Superintendent of Police Valliyoor Tirunelveli District.

4. Mr. Stephen Jose Inspector of Police Panangudi Police Station Tirunelveli District.

5.Mr. Vimal Kumar Sub Inspector of Police Pazhavoor Police Station Pazhavoor Tirunelveli District 1/5

6.Mr.Mohammed Samseer Sub Inspector of Police Pazhavoor Police Station Pazhavoor Tirunelveli District.

7.Mr. Chella Durai Special Sub Inspector of Police(Special Wing) Valliyoor Tirunelveli District

8. Mr. Palani Special Sub Inspector of Police Radhapuram Police Station, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District.

9. Mr.Sagar, Special Constable Valliyoor Tirunelveli District.

10.Mr.Jose Special Constable Valliyoor Tirunelveli District.

.... Respondents Prayer: Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings initiated against the Contemnors herein as per order of the Hon'ble Court dated 14.11.2022 made in W.P.No.33916 of 2017 and W.M.P. No. 37619 of 2017. 2/5

For Petitioner in W.P.No.33916 of 2017 : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan for M/s.T.Fenn Walter Associates For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.P.Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General assisted by G.Krishnaraja, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent 5 : Mr. R. Narayanan For Respondents 6 to 10 : Mr. G. Saravanan

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.33916 of 2017 made a submission that without even registering an FIR and under no authority of law, the police officials entered into the premises of the deceased during the midnight hours. Since the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer reveals the said fact, the police officials who committed such violations are liable to be punished.

2. The learned Additional Advocate General raised an objection by stating that such serious allegations are beyond the pale of doubt. Facts and circumstances of the case are also to be taken into consideration, since the law enforcing authorities on certain exceptional circumstances 3/5

have to initiate action to maintain law and order and to protect the interest of the public. All such mitigating factors are to be considered while taking decision.

3. However, in the present contempt petition, which was initiated suo motu by this Court on the basis of the report of the Judicial Magistrate concerned who recorded that the police authorities had violated the procedures as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure and D.K.Basu's case, now that the principles laid down by the Apex Court in D.K.Basu's case are proposed to be revisited, the said matters are subjudiced. Thus, the petitioner in W.P.No.33916 of 2017 is at liberty to initiate all appropriate legal proceedings in the manner known to law.

4. With these observations, the contempt petition stands closed. 07.09.2023 nl Index : Yes Speaking Order 4/5

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

nl Cont.P.No.2567 of 2022 07.09.2023 5/5