AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard the Petitioner-in-person and Mr. S. Sivashanmugham, learned Government Advocate taking notice for
Respondents 1 and 2.
The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the first Respondent '' Principal Secretary to Government, Home
Department, State of Tamil Nadu to give Rs. 1 crore to the Petitioner from the State Consolidated Fund and to further direct the CBI to
investigate the crimes committed against the Petitioner as requested for in his representations, dated 22.12.2008, 20.3.2009 and 04.5.2009.
Admittedly, the Petitioner was an employee of the third Respondent Co operative Society and, therefore, when the matter came up, initially
there was a confusion regarding the posting of the matter before the appropriate Court.Subsequently, on notice from this Court, the second
Respondent filed a counter affidavit, dated 08.12.2010, to which the Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, dated 16.12.2010. The third Respondent
society also filed a counter affidavit dated 06.1.2011, to which, the Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, dated 10.1.2011.The Petitioner had given
a written submission together with certain decisions allegedly in support of his case.
It is the case of the Petitioner that he made a complaint to the police on 18.12.2008. It was stated that instead of entertaining the complaint, a
false complaint was registered at the instance of some VI Ps. and he was beaten.
Therefore, the Petitioner sought to initiate action on the complaints given by him and for a direction that the matter must be transferred to the CBI
for investigation and the police persons, who are responsible for committing public tort must be punished and the Petitioner must be suitably
compensated. Ultimately, when the entire issue raised by the Petitioner was dismissed by the third Respondent, he raised a dispute, which was
referred to adjudication by the Labour Court, Chennai as I.D. No. 283 of 2006. The Labour Court did not grant any reinstatement but only
awarded a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.
As against the same, the third Respondent filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 17381 of 2008. That writ petition was dismissed confirming the
Award of the Labour Court. Subsequently, a writ appeal has been filed by the Petitioner. But in the meanwhile, the society has paid the amount.
In the counter affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, dated08.12.2010, with reference to the criminal case, in paragraph 5, it was
averred asfollows:
Regarding the averments in Para 6 of the affidavit, it is submitted that on 18.12.2008 at 14.30 hrs on the complaint given by 3rd Respondent a
CSR No. 659/08 was given by HC 817 V. Duraisamy and on 19.12.2008 at 20.00 hrs the same was registered as a case in Cheyyar P.S. Crime
No. 1262/2008 u/s 294(b), 334 IPC. Like wise, on the basis of the complaint given by the Petitioner a CSR No. 658/08 was given on
18.12.2008 at 11.30 hrs and the same was registered as a case in Cheyyar P.S. Crime No. 1266/2008 u/s 294(b), 323 IPC. The SI of Police
investigated boththe said cases and concluded that the complaint given by the Petitioner was foundto be given as mistake of fact and submitted a
final report to the court referringthe case as mistake of fact in RCS No. 05/2009 and served the RCS notice to thePetitioner. Further as
investigation revealed that the Petitioner has committedoffences u/s 294(b) & 332 IPC and so submitted a charge sheet in the court. Thesaid case
was taken on file in CC No. 20/2009 on the file of Sub divisionalMagistrate-II Cheyyar. Further so far 8 witnesses were examined and
prosecutionwas closed. Further, the court questioned the accused u/s 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basisof evidence given by
the witnesses. The trial has come to the stage of pronouncingJudgment and at this stage, the Petitioner in order to drag on the courtproceedings has
come forward with this petition on basis of false and baselessaverments.
This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition in the light of these developments. The Petitioner is unable to put forth his case coherently
and he is also unable to put forth the argument in support of his case. The claim made by the Petitioner cannot be granted. The Petitioner has not
made out any case for grant of any damages on the ground of public tort.
With reference to the change of investigating agency, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, has held
that it is for the aggrieved person to avail appropriate remedy within the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Paragraphs 25 to 27 of the said
judgment reads as follows:
a. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the
police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition u/s 482 of
The Code of Criminal Procedure. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to
interfere in such matters and relegate the Petitioner to his alternating remedy, first u/s 154(3) and Section 36 Code of Criminal Procedure before
the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the Magistrate concerned u/s 156(3).
b. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police
u/s 154(3) Code of Criminal Procedure or other police officer referred to in Section 36 of The Code of Criminal Procedure. If despite
approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate u/s
156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint u/s 200 of The Code of Criminal Procedure. Why then should writ
petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?
c. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation
and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The
High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure simply because a person has a
grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For
this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, u/s 156(3) Code of
Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure and not by filing a writ petition or a
petition u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.