Madras High Court
J.Lawrence vs The Tamil Nadu State on 25 August, 2022
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 25/08/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
WP(MD)No.23334 of 2018
and
WMP(MD)No.21197 of 2018
J.Lawrence : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State
represented through its
Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-09.
2.The Director General of Police,
O/o.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Road,
Mylapore, Chennai.
3.The Inspector General of Police,
South Zone,
Madurai.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
5.Tmt.Anthony Amma,
Inspector of Police,
Nithiraivilai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
6.Tmt.Kumari Vijila,
Head Constable,
W/o.Sathuraj,
Kattuvilai, Varutattu,
Medukummal Post, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of
Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take
appropriate action against the respondents 5 and 6 based
on the petitioner representation dated 24/06/2017 and
reminder dated 30/01/2018 and consequently, direct the
respondents to award appropriate compensation to the
petitioner which may be fixed by this court and to pass
any other further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For R1 to R4 : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R5 and R6 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 respondents to take appropriate action against the respondents 5 and 6, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 24/06/2017 and the reminder, dated 30/01/2018 and consequently, direct the respondents to award appropriate compensation to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3
2.The facts in brief:-
The petitioner and his brother by name Justus are having neighboring houses and there is a 2 feet width pathway. So the petitioner purchased 168 Square links and 12 links vacant land from one Mariyarajan, on 19.09.2010.
After purchasing the above said land, the brother namely Justus refused to relinquish his portion of land for pathway and he fenced the above said land and used the same for car parking. In the meantime, his brother made a complaint to Tithiraivilai Police Station, on 14.11.2016 stating that he parked his car in the pathway and thereby, caused trouble to him. There was an enquiry and brother of the petitioner was warned not to make such sort of false complaint.
3.The sixth respondent is the close relative of his brother. So the fifth and sixth respondents used to visit their house frequently. The 5th respondent was transferred to Nithiraivilai Police Station and from the date of assumption of the charge, he gave lot of trouble to the petitioner's family, also made a threat not to park his vehicle in front of his house. At the instigation of his https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 brother, the vehicle was also stolen by unknown persons. So, he made a complaint and that was not properly taken care.
4.On 22.06.2017, his daughter also parked the vehicle in front of his house and went for a marriage function. When she returned back, she found that the car, which was parked, found missing. On enquiry, it was informed that the fifth respondent and other persons took out the car and caused damage.
5.The petitioner sent a detailed complaint, on 23.06.2017. But there was no proper action. After a lapse of 7 days, a false FIR has been registered under section 102 Cr.P.C in Crime No.136 of 2017 as if the aforesaid car was parked in the public place, causing disturbances to the movement of others. Again, a detailed complaint was given. Again, enquiry notice was issued only by the fifth respondent, against whom, the present complaint has been launched. So this writ petition has been filed seeking compensation amount of Rs.3,00,0000/-, apart from directing the first respondent to take action against the fifth and sixth respondents for misusing their official power.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5
6.A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent stating that a joint purchase of land was made by the petitioner and his brother namely Justus for the purpose of using the same as a common pathway. Apart from these two persons, another brother namely Christopher also joined in the aforesaid purchase. Suits in O.S.Nos.430 of 2010 and 182 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, ended in favor of the above said Justus. Because of the aforesaid result of the suits, there was enmity between two brothers. The brother of the petitioner lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner parked the four wheeler blocking the common pathway and enquiry was undertaken. During the course of enquiry, both parties were advised to settle the issue before Thasildar, by measuring the pathway. That was closed in CSR No.318 of 2016. Again, a suit in O.S.No.220 of 2016 was filed by Justus before the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai and in I.A.No.629 of 2016, an interim order was passed directing the petitioner not to make any trouble or disturbance. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6
7.The fifth respondent never enquired the complaint that was given by Justus. She took up the charge only, on 20.04.2017. The allegation that a false FIR has been registered is also denied; During the course of enquiry, the petitioner was directed to produce the documents to show that he purchased the disputed property, but he did not appear for the enquiry, and produce any document. Again, a complaint sent by the petitioner, on 21.02.2018 to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Cholachel requesting to transfer the same to some other Officer. Actually, the aforesaid case in Crime No.136 of 2017 came to be registered by one Ashok Kumar, who was working as a Sub Inspector of Police during the relevant time. As stated by the petitioner, the complaint was not enquired by the fifth respondent. With these averments in the counter, they want the writ petition to be dismissed.
8.Heard both sides.
9.It is seen that there was a dispute between two brothers with regard to the pathway, over which, both of them claims, either absolute or common right. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7
10.It is the case of the petitioner that it is his absolute pathway, in which, his brother namely, Justus have no interest. It is purely a civil issue, which cannot be gone into by this Court sitting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
11.So without going into merits of the rival claim with regard to the ownership of the property, let us concentrate mainly on the issue that has been raised by the petitioner to the effect that at the instance of his brother namely Justus, a false case has been registered by the fifth respondent and his car has also been taken to the Police Station, kept there idle without returning the same and thereby caused damage.
12.As I mentioned earlier, it is the contention on the part of the official respondents to the effect that since the petitioner parked the vehicle blocking the common pathway, it was taken to the police station and the case was registered, even the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry officer for completing the process of enquiry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8
13.Finding that an allegation of misuse of power by the fifth respondent is made, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari to enquire the matter and file a report. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, it appears that enquiry was undertaken by the Superintendent of Police.
14.With regard to the specific allegation that the fifth respondent had taken the car illegally, it has been submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari to the effect that since nobody claimed any ownership right over the above said car, it was seized by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nithiraiviali Police Station and a case has been registered in Crime No.136 of 2017. Intimation was sent to the petitioner to take the car back, but he had not taken any care. Subsequently, on 19.11.2017, final report was filed by referring the same as 'Action Dropped'. So on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, dated 24.06.2017, it was forwarded to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Cholachel for enquiry. Summon was issued to the petitioner and the counter petitioner, but the petitioner did not appear and produce any document. In spite of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 repeated summons, the petitioner did not appear. Again, on 21.02.2018, the complaint was sent.
15.It appears that the status report is the repetition of the counter that has been filed by the fourth respondent.
16.Now whatever it may be, I find that it is the dispute between two brothers and no doubt that FIR has been registered in Crime No.132 of 2017 under section 102 Cr.P.C.is not proper. The petitioner was directed to take vehicle from the police station, since the respondents police repeatedly made submission before this Court that the petitioner can get the vehicle return by producing proper document. But in spite of the specific direction issued by the court, the petitioner did not oblige and insisted that action must be taken against the official Respondents, then only he will receive the vehicle.
17.It has been observed by this Court, on 25.02.2022 to the effect that such an attitude cannot be encouraged. When there is a specific direction by this Court, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 petitioner has to oblige the same. But he never take care to obey the order of this Court. What has been done by the petitioner is also equally improper, so as the fifth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case. When the petitioner is not ready to obey the order of this Court, then he is not entitled to get any relief from this Court.
18.Further, it has been observed that it is purely a civil dispute between two brothers, the respondents ought not to have interfered into the same. On this occasion, a circular that was issued by the Director General of Police, Chennai, regarding the procedures to be adopted by the police officials, while entertaining the civil dispute must be taken into account. In this regard, G.O.Ms.No.1580, Home (POL.VIII) Department, dated 24/11/208 and a Circular Memorandum in RC.No. 226313/Crime.4(3)2013 were issued. So all the above said circulars have been violated by the respondents in this matter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11
19.In view of the above said discussion, this writ petition is partly allowed regarding the 2nd relief for taking action against the police officials and there shall be a direction to the 4th respondent herein to initiate action against the erring police official, who registered FIR and conducted the investigation, in the light of the circular issued by the DIG in this regard. Regarding the relief of compensation, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25/08/2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To,
1.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-09.
2.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai.
3.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12
4.The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Nithiraivilai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13 G.ILANGOVAN, J er WP(MD)No.23334 of 2018 25.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis