T.Rajapandiyan v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.05.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.POORNIMA W.P(MD) No.14307 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD) Nos.10524 and 10527 of 2025 T.Rajapandiyan ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
2. The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli.
3. The Inspector of Police, Suthamalli Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.589/T.A.U.S./ Go.Ka.Aa/Thili.Ma/2025, dated 06.05.2025 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and further directing the second 1/8
respondent to preserve and provide a copy of the CCTV footage of the third respondent police station on 16.04.2025 from morning 9.00 am till evening 6.00 pm forthwith to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jeyamohan For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.589/T.A.U.S./Go.Ka.Aa/Thili.Ma/2025, dated 06.05.2025 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and further directing the second respondent to preserve and provide a copy of the CCTV footage of the third respondent police station on 16.04.2025 from morning 9.00 am till evening 6.00 pm forthwith to the petitioner.
2. As per the petitioner, the case was registered against him in Crime No.239 of 2025, on the file of third respondent police for offences under Sections 126 (2), 296 (b), 109 and 351 (3) of BNS. The said FIR was registered as against the petitioner on the allegation that on 16.04.2025 at 2/8
around 10.00 a.m in morning while the above said Pradeep was coming near Mupidadhi Amman Kovil Street, at that time, the petitioner and another person intercepted him and warned him as to not to involve in the affairs of the village and as such attempted to kill him with aruval. Subsequently, the said Pradeep escaped and ran away. Further, they have threatened him with dire consequence. The defacto complainant further stated that on 16.04.2025 at 10.00 a.m the above said Pradeep has approached the third respondent police at 11.00 a.m and based on his complaint, FIR was registered as against the petitioner and another person, namely, Shanmugavel @ Murugan. The above said case is falsely registered as against the petitioner.
3. Originally, the petitioner was called by the Inspector of Police, Suthamalli Police Station, by name Sonamuthu to attend the preliminary enquiry at third respondent police on 16.04.2025. Informing him that a complaint is pending against him as such he should appear for preliminary enquiry. Believing the words of the said Inspector of Police, the petitioner appeared before the third respondent police on 16.04.2025 at morning 09.00 a.m. At that time, the defacto complainant was also present in the police station. Subsequently, while he was waiting in the police station, the Inspector 3/8
of Police asked the petitioner to go and have a tea. Thereafter, the petitioner and the defacto complainant left from the police station at 10.30 am and went to the tea shop situated near the police station and came back to the police station at around 11.30. a.m. Thereafter, while the petitioner appeared before the third respondent police, he was orally informed that since the defacto complainant namely, Pradeep and his uncle, namely Veshamuthukumar are politically influential person, on their request an FIR is registered as against him and as such, the third respondent police took the petitioner to the learned Judicial Magistrate for remand and as the petitioner was remanded in Central Prison, Palayamkottai in respect of the above said case. Subsequently, the petitioner came out on Bail in view of the order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.1701 of 2025, dated 25.04.2025.
4. Even As per the FIR, the occurrence took place near Mupidathi Amman Kovil street, at 10.00 a.m on 16.04.2025, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was present in the third respondent Police Station premises. Even while the petitioner was in custody, his wife has given a detailed complaint narrating the said incident to the first respondent on 18.04.2025 and an online complaint was also registered to such effect. The 4/8
third respondent police station is installed with CCTV cameras. In the event of securing the CCTV footage, the same would be useful to prove the petitioner innocence and to show that the above said case is a put up case against the petitioner. Hence, his wife by detailed application dated 17.04.2025 sought for the CCTV footage in respect of the third respondent police station from 09.00 am till evening 06.00 pm on 16.04.2025 to the second respondent being the Public Information Officer as per the RTI Act. The second respondent has refused to grant the copy of the CCTV footage on the reason that on the same day various complainant and accused have appeared for enquiry before police station and hence, the copy of the CCTV footage could not be circulated to him. The said order of the second respondent is illegal. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward the present writ petition.
5. Now, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State requests time till 05.06.2025 for getting instructions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a direction is to be given to secure CCTV Footage, since it will be automatically deleted. 5/8
7. Taking into consideration the representation made by the petitioner, this Court is also of the opinion that if the CCTV footage is not secured, it will be automatically deleted. Hence, a direction is issued to the second respondent police to secure the same to preserve the copy of the CCTV footage on 16.04.2025 from morning 09.00 am to 06.00 p.m.
8. With the above said observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.
28.05.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi 6/8
To
1. The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
2. The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli.
3. The Inspector of Police, Suthamalli Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
7/8
R.POORNIMA,J.
ebsi W.P(MD)No.14307 of 2025 28.05.2025 8/8