AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Sundresh, J—This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate action against the erred officials who have committed brutalities against the petitioner and confined him under illegal custody on 28.07.2014.
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent No. 2 to register an F.I.R. on the basis of the petitioner''s complaint to the respondents against Assistant Superintendent of Police, Pandi Gangadhar and officials of the Eraniel Police Station for illegal detention, criminal intimidation and extortion of the petitioner on 11.08.2014.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner is a practising lawyer. A case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 283 of 2014 for the alleged offence under Section 354(D) I.P.C. r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act r/w Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act on the file of Asaripallam Police Station. The petitioner was taken into custody and thereafter granted bail. Final report has already been filed in the said case.
The petitioner gave a complaint stating that without authority of law, he has been taken to Eraniel Police Station as against Asaripallam Police Station and kept in illegal custody. The petitioner has made the very same statement before the Judicial Magistrate before whom he was produced. The petitioner''s complaint was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition (MD) No. 20684 of 2014, seeking a direction to take appropriate action against the erring officials who are responsible for his illegal custody. The Criminal Original Petition (MD) No. 4061 of 2015 has been filed seeking a direction to register the F.I.R. on the complaint given by him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:
In law, the respondents are duty bound to register the complaint of the petitioner. It is a case of case in counter and therefore as per the Police Standing Order both the cases have to be registered especially when the first complaint has been registered. The petitioner has been illegally detained affecting his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is no fair investigation done by the Inspector of Police, Colachel Police Station. As cognizable offence has been made out, the case ought to have been registered on the complaint. The respondents have not even given the copy of the closure report.
Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is no explanation for not taking action through the Court of Law after the alleged occurrence. The petitioner being a legally trained person ought not to have waited till 11.08.2014 when the alleged occurrence is on 28.07.2014. The allegations made are not true. The investigation reveals the complicity of the petitioner and the case put forth by him was found to be incorrect. Therefore, no interference is required.
The prayer sought for in the Writ Petition cannot be considered at this stage. The question as to whether the persons against whom the petitioner is complaining have committed the offences or not will have to be established first. Admittedly as on today, the complaint made by the petitioner has been closed. Therefore, based upon the same no action can be taken against the officers alleged to have committed the atrocities. Hence, W.P.(MD) No. 20684 of 2014 is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate petition during appropriate time based on appropriate materials, if so advised. No costs.
Insofar as Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 4061 of 2015 is concerned, it is not in dispute that the complaint given by the petitioner has been closed. It is not a case in counter. The occurrence which is the subject matter of Crime No. 283 of 2014 and the occurrence as alleged by the petitioner are different, though one follows the other. The parties are also different. Therefore, it cannot be termed as a case in counter. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no mandate in law to register the complaint given by the petitioner.
The question as to whether the petitioner was kept in illegal custody is a matter of fact, which cannot be adjudicated before this Court. However, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to copy of the closure report. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) who is assisting learned Additional Advocate General handed over a copy of the final report as well as copy of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 4061 of 2015 to the petitioner''s counsel. Thus, it is well open to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, if so advised. Liberty is given to the petitioner to raise all the points raised in this petition before the Court below.
Accordingly, Crl. O.P.(MD) No. 4061 of 2015 is disposed of.