← Library
Madras High CourtCONT P(MD)/1711/2019closed

Mariappan, v. Mrs.Vanitharani

2021-02-11Honourable Mr Justice T.Raja,Honourable Mr Justice B.Pugalendhi13 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.02.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Contempt Petition (MD) No.1711 of 2019

1. Mariappan

2. Veeraputheeran ... Petitioners vs.

1. Mr.J.K.Tripathy The Director General of Police, Santhome High Road, Chennai.

(1st respondent is deleted vide order dated 20.11.2019)

2. Mrs.Vanitha Rani Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar.

... Respondent/Contemnor Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act to issue notice to the respondent/contemnor and punish them under Contempt of Courts Act 1971 for willfully disobeying the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl.Appeal No.1277 of 2014 on 02.07.2014.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was delivered by B.PUGALENDHI, J.) The petitioners, namely, Mariappan and Veeraputheeran, are accused in Cr.No.4 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar, second respondent herein and moved this petition to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent and to punish the respondent for willfully disobeying the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014 dated 02.07.2014.

2. The case of the petitioners is that one Michael Raja preferred a complaint against them before the second respondent Police on a financial transaction with an allegation that when the defacto complainant approached the first petitioner for the purpose 1/13

of getting a loan to an extent of Rs.5,00,000/-, the first petitioner arranged the loan through one Santhosh Kumar and as a security for the same, obtained a mortgage deed of the complainant property in favour of the first petitioner on 23.02.2010. According to the complainant the entire loan amount was repaid by him to the first petitioner but he inturn did not pay the same to the lenderSanthosh Kumar and also refused to cancel the registered mortgage deed even after the settlement. Therefore, the complainant Michael Raja preferred a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, who forwarded the same to the District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar, for an enquiry. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar, the second respondent herein registered a case in Cr.No.4 of 2019 as against these petitioners and one Karuppasamy for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC and also arrested the accused on 11.06.2019 and remanded them to Judicial custody.

3. Aggrieved over the same, the present contempt petition is filed. Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this contempt petition, referring to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353, submits that the averment in the complaint is of commercial nature and therefore, the respondent Police, after the receipt of the complaint, ought to have conducted a preliminary enquiry before registering the case, but, instead, the second respondent registered the case without conducting any preliminary enquiry and also arrested the petitioners. It is also the case of the petitioners that the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2014 (3) SCC Crl. 449 have not been followed in this case.

4. Though the contempt petition has been filed as against the Director General of Police, Chennai and the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar, the first respondent / the Director General of Police was deleted vide order of this Court dated 20.11.2019. This Court also took cognizance of this petition and ordered notice on 20.11.2019.

5. On receipt of notice in this contempt petition, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, entered appearance and also filed an affidavit in support of her case. According to the respondent, the complaint of Michael Raja was received by the District Crime Branch from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar and after perusing the complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, registered a case in Cr.No.4 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC as against these petitioners and another on 11.06.2019 and pursuant to the same, the petitioners were arrested on 11.06.2019. The first petitioner also gave a confession statement to the 2/13

respondent and they were also produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate for remand without any delay. The requirements as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were complied with. The learned Judicial Magistrate has also considered the remand report and arrest memo filed as required under Sections 41(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. and remanded the petitioners to judicial custody. The respondent has also tendered unconditional apology, if any omission has been made in discharging her duty and it was not willful to disobey the order of this Court and therefore, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Heard Mr.K.P.S.Palanivelrajan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.B.Sarvanan, learned counsel for the respondent and we also perused the materials placed on record. 7.

Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari's case and Arnesh Kumar's case (as cited above) submits that the first petitioner is an octogenarian and he is suffering with certain ailments, but, the respondent Police, without considering his age and physical conditions, registered a case on a commercial transaction, arrested and remanded him to judicial custody, without following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case. In support of his contention, he has also relied on the following Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

(i) Amandeep Singh Johar Vs. State of NTC of Delhi and another reported in 2018 (2) Crimes 601 (Del.) (ii) Vitusah Oberoi & others Vs. Court of its own motion reported in 2017 SCC (2) 314.

(iii) (2016) 11 SCC 703; Rini Johar & Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others.

(iv) (2019) 1 SCC (Crl) 276; Social Action Forum & Another Vs. Union of India & others.

8. Section 41 of Cr.P.C. empowers a Police Officer to arrest a person without an order from the Magistrate and without a warrant as stipulated in the Section. Section 41A was inserted by the Amendment Act 2008 to the Code of Criminal Procedure with effect from 01.11.2010 that in all cases, where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41, the Police Officer shall issue a notice as against the person and he shall not be arrested without any reasons to be recorded.

9. Discussing the provisions of Section 41 and 41(A) of Cr.P.C. the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2014 (3) SCC (Cri) 449, has held as follows:

3/13

6. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court in a large number of judgments emphasized the need to maintain a balance between individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest. Police officers make arrest as they believe that they possess the power to do so. As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we feel differently. We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof.

No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the Legislature did not find any improvement. Numbers of arrest have not decreased. Ultimately, the Parliament had to intervene and on the recommendation of the 177th Report of the Law Commission submitted in the year 2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.PC), in the present form came to be enacted. It is interesting to note that such a recommendation was made by the Law Commission in its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as back in the year 1994.

The value of the proportionality permeates the amendment relating to arrest.

7. As the offence with which we are concerned in the present appeal, provides for a maximum punishment of imprisonment which may extend to seven years and fine, Section 41(1)(b), Cr.PC which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows:

41. When police may arrest without warrant.- (1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person - (a) ........

(b)against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely :- (i) ........

(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary - 4/13

(a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or (b) for proper investigation of the offence; or (c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or (d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or (d) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing:

Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest."

7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid.

Police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts. 7.2.

Law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. Law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest. 7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve?

addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.PC.

8. An accused arrested without warrant by the police has the constitutional right under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57, Cr.PC to be produced before the Magistrate without unnecessary delay and in no circumstances beyond 24 hours excluding the time necessary for the journey.

8.1. During the course of investigation of a case, an accused can be kept in detention beyond a period of 24 hours only when it is authorised by the Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 167 Cr.PC. The power to authorise detention is a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. Our experience tells us that it is not exercised with the seriousness it deserves. In many of the cases, detention is authorised in a routine, casual and cavalier manner.

8.2. Before a Magistrate authorises detention under Section 167, Cr.PC, he has to be first satisfied that the arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and all the constitutional rights of the person arrested is satisfied. If the arrest effected by the police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the Code, Magistrate is duty bound not to authorise his further detention and release the accused. In other words, when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, the police officer effecting the arrest is required to furnish to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons and its conclusions for arrest and the Magistrate in turn is to be satisfied that condition precedent for arrest under Section 41 Cr.PC has been satisfied and it is only thereafter that he will authorise the detention of an accused.

8.3. The Magistrate before authorising detention will record its own satisfaction, may be in brief but the said satisfaction must reflect from its order. It shall never be based upon the ipse dixit of the police officer, for example, in case the police officer considers the arrest necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence or for proper 6/13

investigation of the case or for preventing an accused from tampering with evidence or making inducement etc., the police officer shall furnish to the Magistrate the facts, the reasons and materials on the basis of which the police officer had reached its conclusion. Those shall be perused by the Magistrate while authorising the detention and only after recording its satisfaction in writing that the Magistrate will authorise the detention of the accused.

8.4. In fine, when a suspect is arrested and produced before a Magistrate for authorising detention, the Magistrate has to address the question whether specific reasons have been recorded for arrest and if so, prima facie those reasons are relevant and secondly a reasonable conclusion could at all be reached by the police officer that one or the other conditions stated above are attracted. To this limited extent the Magistrate will make judicial scrutiny.

9. Another provision i.e. Section 41A Cr.PC aimed to avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on accused requires to be vitalised. Section 41A as inserted by Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008(Act 5 of 2009), which is relevant in the context reads as follows: 41A. Notice of appearance before police officer.-(1) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.

(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.

(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.

(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.

7/13

The aforesaid provision makes it clear that in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1), Cr.PC, the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time. Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police office is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary. At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged under Section 41 Cr.PC has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate as aforesaid.

10. We are of the opinion that if the provisions of Section 41, Cr.PC which authorises the police officer to arrest an accused without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant are scrupulously enforced, the wrong committed by the police officers intentionally or unwittingly would be reversed and the number of cases which come to the Court for grant of anticipatory bail will substantially reduce. We would like to emphasise that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 Cr.PC for effecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued.

11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;

11.2. All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

11.3. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

11.4. The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after 8/13

recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

11.5. The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

11.6. Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

11.7. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

11.8. Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

13. We direct that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Chief Secretaries as also the Director Generals of Police of all the State Governments and the Union Territories and the Registrar General of all the High Courts for onward transmission and ensuring its compliance.

10. The procedures for issuing of notice by the Police Officers under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure were framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amandeep Singh Johar vs. State of NTC of Delhi and another reported in 2018 (2) Crimes 601 (Del.). Pursuant to the same, the model form of notice and acknowledgement as required under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure were set off by the Director General of Police vide circular memorandum in R.C.(No.) 000252/Crimes 4(2)/2019 dated 30.01.2019 with a specific instruction that any failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to comply with the mandate of the said provision of Cr.P.C. and the above procedure shall render him liable to appropriate departmental action / disciplinary proceedings under the applicable rules and regulations as well as contempt of Court in 9/13

terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273.

11. In a similar case, where a person was arrested for an allegation of cheating, the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana held that there has been deprivation of personal liberty by the respondent without following due process of law and the respondent has willfully disobeyed the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's case and also punished the respondent with imprisonment of four weeks with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and a further direction was also issued to the Commissioner of Police Hyderabad City and the State of Telangana to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for violation of the decision in Arnesh Kumar's case.

12. Whereas, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vitusah Oberoi's case reported in 2017 SCC (2) 314, held that there was no provision either in the Constitution or in the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, that empowered the High Court to take cognizance of the contempt of a superior court like the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India are declared to be the courts of record. The High Court being the court of record shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

The provisions of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 also empower the High Court to punish for its own contempt or the contempt of courts subordinate to it; whereas nothing in the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 or in the Article 215 of the Constitution of India can be said to empower the High Court to proceed with any contempt suo motu or otherwise for the contempt of a superior court like the Supreme Court of India. 13.However in Arnesh Kumar (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that violation to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court shall be liable for departmental action and shall also be liable to get punished for contempt of Court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has issued those guidelines to avoid unnecessary arrest by the Police Officers and mechanical remands without any valid reasons.

14.As discussed supra, the power of arrest is vested with the Police Officials under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. and the Police Officer must satisfy the following conditions before effecting an arrest under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C.;

(a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or (b) for proper investigation of the offence; or (c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or 10/13

(d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or (e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured, and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing:

15. A Magistrate before whom the accused is produced for remand, must scrutinize the file to ensure that the requirements of Section 41(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are satisfied. The power of remand under Section 167 Cr.P.C is a judicial function and at that stage the Magistrate is not expected to conduct a roving enquiry but find out the sufficient materials to proceed with the accused. The Magistrate after perusal of the records and after its satisfaction can order for a remand. In this case, the petitioners were produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate along with a check list and the Magistrate satisfying with the materials placed, had passed an order of remand to judicial custody.

16. This Court has also called for the CD File in Cr.No.04 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District and perused the same. A perusal of the file shows that when this complaint as against these petitioners was made on 06.06.2019 before the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar, the same was forwarded to the District Crime Branch and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, has sought for an opinion from the Legal Advisor attached to their Department and the Legal Advisor by his opinion dated 08.06.2019 in G3/25311/1439/19 opined as follows;

"The complaint was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, ALGSC Viruthunagar District for necessary action. The Inspector of Police, ALGSC took up preliminary enquiry and received a copy of the acknowledgment receipt of the amount by Mariappan from the petitioner. The petitioner also during enquiry had stated that the value of the lands comes to one crore. The other witnesses enquired by the Inspector of Police also corroborates the statement of the petitioner. Hence the intention of the counter petitioners clearly prove that the counter petitioners cheated the petitioner to grab the lands of the petitioner.

As per judgment of Lalita Kumari Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh at paragraph No.111(i) are as follows:- "Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation."

11/13

Therefore, I am of opinion that a prima facie offences are made out against the counter petitioners Mariappan and his sons Karuppasamy, Veeraputhiran u/sec.406, 420 IPC r/w 34 IPC.

17. Based on this opinion obtained from the Legal Advisor stated supra, this case as against the petitioners came to be registered in Cr.No.4 of 2019 by the Sub-Inspector of Police for the offences under Section 406, 420 IPC r/w 34 of IPC on 11.06.2019 at about 10.00 AM and these petitioners were arrested on the same day at 04.00PM. The Inspector of Police has also recorded confession statements from the petitioners and also recovered a document in the presence of two witnesses under a cover of Mahazar. Thereafter, the accused were produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate with a remand report along with a report in prescribed format furnished by the Department as required under Section 41(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate satisfying with the reasons stated in the remand report and the report submitted as per Section 41(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., remanded the petitioners to judicial custody.

18. The respondent justifying the arrest on the premise that the petitioners are indulging in similar offences; that for the smooth course of proper investigation; that in order to prevent the accused from tampering the available evidence; and that to prevent any threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, effected the arrest and there is no willful deliberation on her part. Besides, she also made an unconditional apology, if any portion of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been strictly complied with.

19. Mr.Saravanan, learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the orders of this Court in Cont.P.No.16 of 2008 dated 26.09.2008 and in Cont.P.(MD).No.974 of 2014 dated 18.08.2014, wherein the Contempt Petitions were filed for not following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR (1997) 1 SCC 416. In both the above Contempt Petitions this Court shown some leniency from punishing the contemnor and closed the Contempt Petitions with a warning.

20. In this case, the remand has been made in the prescribed format as per Section 41(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and the learned Judicial Magistrate satisfied with the remand report, and the form, enclosed along with the report, as contemplated under 41(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. has remanded the petitioners to the judicial custody. The case in Cr.No.4 of 2019 was also registered after obtaining an opinion from the legal advisor attached to their Department. Since the investigation is pending in this case, this Court is not discussing in detail with regard to the merits of the complaint. 12/13

21. Considering the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to punish the respondent, accordingly, this Contempt Petition stands closed with a direction to the Director General of Police to apprise the position of law and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgment to all the officers by issuing circulars/Memo in this regard.

In the result, this Contempt Petition stands closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar () // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ogy/mrm To 1.The Director General of Police, Santhome High Road, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench, Madurai.

+1 CC to Mr.B.SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-4690[F] dated 12/02/2021 ) Order made in Contempt Petition (MD) No.1711 of 2019 11.02.2021 VB (25.02.2021) 13P 5C 13/13