Madras High CourtWP(MD)/25469/2019disposed of

J.Sheen v. The Director General Of Police

2022-04-28Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.Sheen ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Police Department Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai 4.

2.The Director Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing 293 NKN Road Alandhur,, Chennai 16.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing Simon Nagar, Nagercoil Kanyakumari District.

5.The Inspector of Police (Traffic) Traffic Investigation Wing, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

6.S.Jeyarajan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to initiate appropriate action against the 6th respondent based on the petitioner's representation dated 14.11.2019. For Petitioner : Mr.L.George Paul Anto For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar Addl. Government Pleader

ORDER

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to initiate appropriate action against the 6th respondent.

2.The petitioner states that when the petitioner was driving 1/3

his two wheeler on 07.11.2019 at about 8.00 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the other vehicle coming in the opposite side hit the writ petitioner and he sustained grievous injuries in his left hand thumb. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital for treatment. He has given a complaint through online. On 08.11.2019, the 6th respondent came to the hospital and enquired the petitioner. The 6th respondent demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to register a case and the petitioner refused to pay the same. The 6th respondent threatened the petitioner that he would register a case against him, if he has not paid the demanded amount of Rs.10,000/-. The 6th respondent being a Sub Inspector of Police demanded bribe and further threatened the writ petitioner.

Thus, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents 1 to 5 to initiate appropriate action against the 6th respondent. But no action has been taken. 3.This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the petitioner could not able to furnish any materials to establish the statement or acceptance of bribe except by submitting a representation. No doubt, under certain circumstances, the victims may not be in a position to collect evidence when such public officials demand money from the victims or from the accused persons. If at all such circumstances arose, atleast the victims are expected to provide intimation to the higher officials concerned for conducting enquiry. No doubt, large scale corruption are noticed on some occasions in the public domain.

The higher police officials are expected to be vigilant in such circumstances and enquiry to be conducted to cull out the truth.

4.In the present case, though the petitioner states that the 6th respondent demanded bribe, absolutely there is no material on record to establish the same except the representation sent by the writ petitioner after a lapse of five days from the date of such demand by the 6th respondent. Therefore, this Court is unable to consider the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition. However, the higher authorities are expected to conduct enquiry whenever such allegations are noticed or complaint received.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) RR 2/3

To: