AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order of the second respondent, Superintendent of Police, Madurai District in refusing to consider the case for sanction of prosecution against the third respondent, who was functioning as superintendent of Police at Ngapattinam.
The petitioner sent a representation to the Chief Minister''s grievance cell seeking permission to prosecute the third respondent for having foisted a false case against him. The said letter was sent to the Home Department, which was again forwarded to the Director General of Police asking him to send a suitable reply to the petitioner. The said petition was in turn forwarded to the second respondent and it was replied to by a reply dated 21.04.2006. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.
The grievance of the petitioner was that he was a retired Sub- Postmaster. After his retirement, he was residing at Achampatti Village, Thirumangalam Taluk. His elder son was married to one Shanthi and they had three children out of the wedlock. His son Sampath died on 18.12.2001. After the death of his son, with a meagre income that he receives from the Government, he was maintaining his widowed daughter-in-law along with her children. While so, his daughter-in-law developed intimacy with one Sethuraman. Despite his warning, she has not mend her ways. Thereafter, she left the house along with his grand children and took a house for rent. The said Sethuraman has four friends, who were known to the third respondent who was then the Additional Superintendent of Police, Madurai Rural. At the instance of the third respondent, his daughter-in-law gave a false complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tirumangalam Taluk and a case was registered against him in Cr. No. 164 of 2002 alleging that the petitioner has committed offence under sections under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 354 and 506(ii) IPC. Without conducting investigation properly and at the instance of the third respondent, final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam who took it on file as C.C. No. 16 of 2003.
The trial ended in conviction, convicting him for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 354 IPC to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to pay the fine amount, one month simple imprisonment, for the offence u/s 341 IPC and the for the offence u/s 323 IPC 3 months simple imprisonment and for the offence u/s 354 IPC, 3 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to pay the fine amount three amounts simple imprisonment.
As against the judgment of conviction in C.C. No. 16 of 2003, he preferred appeal before the Additional District Fast Track Court in C.A. No. 210 of 2003 and the same was allowed and he was acquitted on 15.06.2004. The complaint given by his daughter-in-law was that while she was returning back from her job, the petitioner has misbehaved with her and outraged her modesty. The appellate Court gave a finding that the complaint itself was written by one Sethuraman, his daughter-in-law''s paramour and the said Sethuraman is a friend of third respondent. Therefore, since the third respondent was behind the false complaint, he wanted to prosecute the third respondent for which sanction is required and against the refusal of sanction, the petitioner is before this Court.
The writ petition was admitted on 10.07.2006. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10.06.2011 and on petition being filed in M.P. (MD) NO. 1 of 2011, the writ petition was restored to file.
On notice from this Court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 15.04.2008. In the counter affidavit, in paragraph 6, it was averred as follows:-
It is submitted that the petitioner made representation seeking permission to prosecution the 3rd respondent. The petition was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Tirumangalam for holding enquiry. Accordingly the Inspector of Police namely Pathamuthu enquired the petition on 29.04.2005 in the said enquiry the petitioner was also present and he agreed to get permission from the government and in future if there is any untoward incident is occurred against him he will approach the Inspector of Police for getting remedy and accordingly the petitioner was not pressing the petition. To that effect the petitioner made a statement in his own handwriting on 29.04.2005 and accordingly the petition of the petitioner was closed on the basis of the report of the Inspector of Police Sri.Pathamuthu.
Even otherwise, the reason found in the impugned order viz., that on overall consideration of the case declined to grant sanction for prosecution cannot be found fault with. Ultimately the power of sanction vest with the State Government and unless there are malafides, the question of this Court granting sanction to prosecute will not arise. There is no prima facie case for maintaining the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.