AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Periya Karuppiah, J.—This petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to punish the Respondent for his willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 4742 of 2009 dated 20.08.2009.
Heard Mr. K.K. Ramesh, the petitioner who appeared as party-in-person and Mrs.S. Devasena, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the Respondent.
The Petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person would submit in his argument that this Court has passed an order in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 4742 of 2009 dated 20.08.2009 issuing a direction to investigate the matter in crime No. 615 of 2007 pending before him and to file charge sheet and the Petitioner was also directed to co-operate with the investigating officer and accordingly, the Petitioner had appeared before the Respondent, but, he did not examine the Petitioner and record his statement nor to file the charge sheet in accordance with the direction of this Court. He would further submit in his argument that the Petitioner has willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court and therefore, he shall be punished suitably for the contempt committed by him.
The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in her argument that the order was passed by this Court on 20.08.2009 and it was obeyed in its letter and spirit by the Respondent and he had issued summons for the examination of the Petitioner on 04.09.2009 and the said summons was sent through one Vivekanandhan, Head Constable No. 1508 attached to the said police station and the Petitioner was not found in the said address given by him and he had returned the summons with the letter attached with the summon to the Respondent. She would further submit that subsequently, the Respondent was transferred from the said post and one Mr. Velladurai had taken charge and he had also taken steps to examine the Petitioner and since there was no response from the Petitioner, he had completed the investigation and preferred a referred charge sheet .
She would further submit in her argument that the said charge sheet has been filed by the succeeding Officer of the Respondent on 29.06.2010 after taking steps to serve the copy of the final report to the Petitioner. She would further submit that the order passed by this Court on 20.08.2009 does not direct the Respondent to complete the investigation and to file the charge sheet within any specified time. She would also submit that the Petitioner was on the other hand directed to co-operate with the investigating officer, but he did not obey the said order and therefore, she would request the Court to dismiss the petition filed by the Petitioner and to pass an order of punishment against the Petitioner.
6.I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side.
The accusation against the Respondent is that the Petitioner did not obey the order passed by this Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 4742 of 2009 dated 20.08.2009. That was a petition filed by the Petitioner seeking for a direction to the Respondent police to investigate the matter in accordance with law and to file a final report in crime No. 615 of 2007 in Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Madurai. The order passed by this Court would run as follows:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigating officer and he is ready to appear before the second Respondent herein.
Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to approach the second Respondent and to co-operate with the second Respondent for further investigation in the matter.
With the above observation, the criminal 5 original petition is disposed of.
The said order would go to show that the Petitioner was directed to co-operate with the Respondent and approach the 2nd Respondent viz., the present Respondent for further investigation in the said matter. Actually, no time limit has been fixed for filing the charge sheet in the said order. The Petitioner states that he had approached the Respondent police. But, the Respondent had produced certain documents to show that the Petitioner could not be contacted in the address given by him in the complaint. The summons sent by the Respondent through one Vivekanandan was produced along with the letter obtained from the said Vivekanandan on 04.09.2009.
Of course, the Respondent had been transferred from the said post of Inspector of Police, Theppakulam police station and subsequently, one Velladurai had been posted there and he had also attempted to serve the summons on two occasions dated05.01.2010 and 20.02.2010. So far as, the summon dated 05.01.2010 is concerned, it was returned with the certificate of Village Administrative Officer that the Petitioner was not residing the said address. However, the summon dated 20.02.2010 had been received by the Petitioner on 21.02.2010. The contention of the 6 Respondent would be that even after that, he had not appeared with the witnesses. The subsequent officer succeeding the post of the Respondent had filed a final report as to ''Mistake of Fact'' dated 29.06.2010, was also produced for the perusal of the Court.
In the said final report, we could see that the Petitioner has not appeared before the successor of the Respondent to produce the witnesses on 04.03.2010. However the final report has been filed as to ''Mistake of Fact. On a careful perusal of those documents, I could see that the Respondent as well as his successor in office had followed the directions given by this Court and filed the final report. This Court did not direct the Respondent to complete the investigation within any time frame. The Respondent has also been transferred from the said post and before his transfer, he had attempted to serve summons against the Petitioner and therefore I cannot find any disobedience on the part of the Respondent in obeying the orders of this Court passed on 20.08.2009 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 4742 of 2007. Therefore, the Respondent is purged out of contempt and accordingly, the petition filed by the Petitioner for contempt is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is not remediless against the filing of the final report as ''Mistake of Fact''. He is given liberty to proceed for seeking the relief of further investigation u/s 178(3) Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law, if so advised.
With the aforesaid observation, this criminal original petition is disposed of.