K.Ramarao vs Director General Of Police

x

Dr D.Nagarjun, J

The petitioner in this criminal original petition sought for the police protection from one Krishnakumar, working as Sub Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station.

According to the petitioner, he has purchased some landed property in various survey numbers in and around Kodaikanal and the same has been cultivating for the last ten years. He has requested one Vijayakumar to cultivate the land to an extent of 3 ¼ acres of land in Survey Nos.1164/7 and 1164/8 in the month of October 2020 for one crop. The said Vijayakumar who has vacated the said land after four months has requested the petitioner to permit him to cultivate one more crop of garlic pulp along with one Regu. The petitioner has permitted. Again the Vijakumar and Regu stated to have requested to permit them to cultivate one more crop.

On 10.04.2023, when the petitioner was allegedly taking breakfast in a hotel, the said Vijayakumar and Regu came to him along with some unsocial elements and has has forced to sign on 50 Rupees stamp paper. The petitioner has lodged a complaint against the said Vijayakumar and Regu before the third respondent police. On 11.06.2023, the third respondent police has called the petitioner and threatened the petitioner to sign the documents thereby, sought for appropriate protection from the third respondent police.\

The petitioner has sent representation to Deputy Inspector General of Police and other senior police officials on 14.06.2023. On the basis of which, the Inspector of Police of Kodaikanal police station has issued summons to the petitioner to conduct enquiry. It is submitted that the third respondent is working in the same Kodaikanal police station and if the petitioner appears for enquiry, the third respondent/Sub Inspector of Police would again force him to sign the documents.

On 17.07.2023, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, to entrust the enquiry of the representation of the petitioner dated 14.06.2023 to any other competent police officer of some other police station and also directed to consider to give protection to the petitioner as sought for. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that that he would also asked the higher police officials to enquire about the complaint of the petitioner and if at all the third respondent, Sub Inspector of Police has committed any error, action would be taken against him.

When the matter was listed on 07.08.2023, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kodaikanal, has filed a status report. It is surprise to note that the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, was directed specifically to entrust the enquiry to any other competent police not connected with the police station of the third respondent. However, the enquiry was entrusted to the second respondent – Deputy Superintendent of Police of Kodaikanal, who is immediate superior of the third respondent, who is working as Sub Inspector of police, Kodaikanal.

On perusal of the status report filed by the second respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police would go to show that on 10.04.2023, near a tea stall both the parties along with their respective Advocates participated in the mediation and executed unregistered agreement on 50 Rupees stamp paper wherein the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- on or before 10.06.2023 to the loss of cultivation after deducting Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also mentioned by the second respondent – Deputy Superintendent of Police of Kodaikanal that no police officers was present at that time. On 11.06.2023, Regu gave a complaint to the third respondent police against the petitioner stating that the petitioner refused to pay the agreed amount. The third respondent called both the parties wherein the petitoner gave an undertaking letter dated 11.06.2023 that he will hand over some other land to Regu and thereby, the Sub Inspector of Police has closed the CSR No.385/2023 on the same day. It is also mentioned in the status report that the Sub Inspector of Police has not insisted the petitioner to give an undertaking letter as represented on 14.06.2023 and that the opposite party insisted the petitioner to sign an agreement in the tea shop but police officer was not involved in the said instance and thereby ultimately reported that the allegations against the Sub Inspector of Police are incorrect.

The second respondent – Deputy Superintendent of Police of Kodaikanal has not enclosed any statements if at all he has recorded in respect of alleged enquiry. It is not clear as to how the second respondent himself assumed himself as an enquiry officer and conduct enquiry and also mentioned that this Court had directed him to conduct enquiry. At paragraph No.5 of the order dated 17.07.2023, this Court has clearly directed the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, to entrust the enquiry to any other competent police officer of some other district. However, the enquiry was done by the superior officer to the third respondent Sub Inspector of Police against whom complaint is made by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not accepted the enquiry report.

In view of the above, the Inspector General of Police – South Zone, Madurai, is hereby directed to entrust the enquiry in respect of the representation of the petitioner dated 14.06.2023 to any of the senior police officer of some other district and submit report to this Court and in the mean while, the Inspector General of Police – South Zone, Madurai, is directed to consider for providing police protection to the petitioner if it is necessary.

Post the matter on 22.09.2023 for filing report. Copy of this order be marked to Superintendent of Police, Dindigul and also to Inspector General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.