Madras High Court
S.Venkatramakrishnan @ Nagaraj vs ) The Superintendent Of Police on 19 September, 2014
Bench: S.Manikumar, V.S.Ravi
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.1053 of 2014 S.Venkatramakrishnan @ Nagaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1) The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. 3) The Inspector of Police, Palani Nagar Police Station, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. 4) Malarvizhi 5) S.Laxmipathi ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the body of the petitioner's wife and son namely, Pandeeswari, W/o. Venkatramakrishnan @ Nagaraj, aged about 44 years & Nagarajan s/o.Venkatramakrishnan @ Nagaraj, aged about 22 years respectively before this Hon'ble Court and set them at liberty. !For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sukumar For Respondents : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajedran Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) One Mr.S.Venkatramakrishnan @ Nagaraj, claiming himself to be the son of Suryakumar @ Vellaichamy, and resident of Door No.113B/264, Kondichampatti, Nadupatti Post, Aathur Post, Dindigul District, has sought for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to produce the corpus of one Pandeeswari, claiming that she is his wife. He has also sought for a direction to produce the corpus of Nagarajan, claiming that he is his son.
2. In the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the alleged Nagarajan was born in the year 1992, through his first wife Easha. After the demise of his wife, he has married one Pandeeswari, and through her, he has two children namely, Dineshkumar and Mallieswari.
3. According to the petitioner, both he and his elder brother Venkatraman enjoyed the ancestral properties. He appointed the petitioner, as a trustee in VLB Janakiammal Trust. The petitioner was running VLB Janakiammal Arts and Science College and Srikrishna Engineering College. The petitioner has inducted Malarvizhi, in the trust.
4. The petitioner has claimed one Venkatraman as his elder brother. In Crime No.1018/1993, of B2 R.S.Puram Police Station, Coimbatore, the said Venkatraman has been convicted and incarcerated in Central Prison. He died suspiciously. Hence, the petitioner sent a complaint to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, against the prison authorities. Having grudge over the petitioner, Mr.Govindarajan, the then Deputy Inspector General of Central Prison, Coimbatore, with the help of hooligans, kidnapped and illegally detained the petitioner. Hence, he filed HCP(MD)No.880/2010 and thereafter, he was set at liberty.
5. The petitioner has further contended that cases were foisted against him. After coming out on bail, he decided to go to Palani temple. On 24.08.2014, he along with his wife Pandeeswari, stated to be his second wife, son Nagarajan and the trustee Malarvizhi, and driver Pechiappan, started from Coimbatore, in a Grey colour Toyota Innova Car bearing registration No.TN.38 AB 1199. They reached Palani bus stand at 09.00 A.M. After returning from the Toilet, in Palani bus stand, he found his wife, son and Malarvizhi, Pechiappan were missing. He could not find out the missing persons. When he came back to their institution at Coimbatore, to his shock and surprise, Malarvizhi was there with the General Manager Laxmipathi.
6. The petitioner has further contended that on the evil advice of Mr.P.Govindaraj, the then Deputy Inspector General of Central Prison, Coimbatore, respondents 4 and 5 have illegally detained his wife, Pandeeswari and son Nagarajan. He has sent a complaint to the police and Human Rights Commission, Chennai on 26.08.2014. Alleging inaction on the part of the police, the present Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed.
7. When the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the official respondents 1 to 3, notice was taken by Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Private parties have also entered appearance. Earlier, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is the practice of the petitioner to file frivolous petitions, by making averments to the effect that he is related to some X and Y, and it is not the first time, that such allegations are made against others. He also submitted that earlier, after hearing the arguments of the official respondents, when Habeas Corpus Petition No.1235/2012 filed by the petitioner was about to be dismissed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner withdrew his appearance. Hence, HCP(MD)No.1235/2012 was dismissed.
8. He further submitted that it is also the practice of the petitioner, to file Habeas Corpus Petitions with different names. In support of the above contentions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor furnished the details of three Habeas Corpus Petitions filed by the petitioner, (1)HCP(MD)No.305/2009, (2)HCP(MD)No.880/2010 and (3)HCP(MD)No.1235/2012. We directed the Registry to place the entire case papers, relating to the above three petitions, including the orders passed thereon.
9. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.S.Sukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed a memo, seeking permission to withdraw his appearance in the present Habeas Corpus Petition(MD)No.1053/2014. Memo dated 19.09.2014 is incorporated hereunder:-
?It is submitted that in the above Habeas Corpus Petition I made appearance for petitioner and filed vakalat on behalf of him. As direction of this Hon'ble Court I take effective steps to appear the petitioner on the further hearings. But my efforts are all went in vain. Hence, on 16.09.2014, I sent a legal notice by Speed Post to the petitioner by intimating the case status and strictly instruct him to appear before this Hon'ble Court in the next hearing on 19.09.2014. That was returned as ?the addressee not available in the locality and there is no proper address.
Hence return to the sender?. Even after my sincere efforts I am not able to contact the petitioner Mr.Venkatramakrishnan @ Nagaraj and there is no instruction from him till today. Hence, I may permit to withdrawn my appearance in the above case in H.C.P(MD)No.1053 of 2014 and thus render Justice?
10. Memo is taken on record and the learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to withdraw his appearance. However, considering the background of the case and after perusal of the entire records, we propose to pass orders in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
11. In the counter affidavit, Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station, has stated that he has enquired into the contents of the petition dated 24.08.2014. He has found the following facts.
The petitioner Nagarajan is a questionable character and he has no respect for law. One Palanisamy Chettiyar of East Govindapuram, Dindigul was a very rich man. But he had no issues. The petitioner forged a power of attorney purported to have been executed by the said Palanisamy Chettiar, in his favour, to get his properties. In this regard, when Palanisamy Chettiar reprimanded, the petitioner, developed enmity against him. He abducted and murdered the said Palanisamy Chettiyar and concealed his dead body into a septic tank with the assistance of his mother and brother. As a result, a case in Dindigul Taluk Police Station Crime No.1140/1994 under Sections 365, 302, 379 and 201 IPC, was registered. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, by the learned Sessions Judge, Dindigul.
12. The Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station further submitted that the petitioner was involved in three robbery cases in B9 Saravanampatty Police Station Crime Nos.675/12, 740/12 and 855/12 under Section 392 IPC. He has been found guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year, by the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Coimbatore, in C.C.Nos.71/13, 72/13, 73/13 dated 21.04.2004, respectively.
13. In another case, B14 Police Station of Coimbatore City Crime No.944/12 under Section 307 IPC, the petitioner and two others have been charged and committed to the Court of Sessions, for trial.
14. In the above case, on 06.12.2012, the petitioner with two other persons namely, Murugan and Ganesan, history sheeted rowdies of Ammainnayaickarur Police Station in Dindigul District, armed with knifes, attempted to forcibly enter into the campus of VLB Trust office at Kovaipudur owned by the 4th respondent, Malarvizhi. When the security guard of the campus, Chinnasamy, prevented the petitioner, from entering into the campus, the petitioner attempted to stab and kill the said Chinnasamy, with a knife.
15. Another case of B14 Kuniyamuthur Police Station in Crime No.573/14, under Sections 115, 465, 467, 468 and 469 IPC has been registered on 06.08.2014 against the petitioner. Police investigation is in progress. The Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station has further submitted that the petitioner has handed over certain papers created by him to his jail mate, Sanjairaja and instigated him, to collect his own reliable persons to murder the 4th respondent. It is the statement of the Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station that if the 4th respondent is murdered, then the petitioner could claim ownership of VLB educational institutions and for this, petitioner has promised to give Rs.1 Crore to Sanjairaja.
16. The Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station has further submitted that his enquiry further revealed that the petitioner has nothing to do with VLB Trust, or the colleges run by the Trust. The allegation that he appointed one Malarvizhi, the 4th respondent, as a trustee is a false statement.
17. He has further averred that earlier, the petitioner was detained as a Goonda by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, in his proceedings in C.No.01/G/IS/2013 dated 02.01.2013. He had completed one year of detention in Central Prison, Coimbatore.
18. The Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station has further submitted that Crime No.1018/93 of Coimbatore City B2 Police Station is not at all relevant to this case. Accused Venkatraman connected in the abovesaid crime is not at all related to the petitioner. The said Venkatraman belongs to Naidu community. The petitioner belongs to Okkilaga Gowder community. The allegation that Mr.P.Govindaraj, the then Deputy Inspector General of Central Prison, Coimbatore, with the help of Hooligans, kidnapped and illegally detained the petitioner under his custody, is a false statement.
19. The Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station has further submitted that using three different names namely, (1)Nagarajan S/o.Vellaisamy Gounder, (2)S.V.Nagarajan, S/o.Venkataramakrishnan and (3)S.Venkataramakrishnan @ Nagaraj S/o.Suryakumar @ Vellaisamy, the petitioner has filed cases, one after another.
20. According to the deponent, HCP(MD)No.305/2009 was filed in the name of Nagarajan S/o. Vellaisamy Gounder, alleging that his mother-in-law, Keppammal was missing and that he had suspected his uncle, Palanisamy to have kidnapped her. This Court directed registration of a criminal case. Accordingly, the Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul District, registered a case in Crime No.261/2009, under the caption, 'woman missing' and the conducted investigation. The Sub Inspector of Police, who was assigned special duty in this case, visited many places and submitted a special report to the Inspector of Police, stating that the petitioner, who happened to see a notification published in a Bangalore newspaper, by the relatives of one Chandrammal @ Chandrika and died in Bangalore, leaving behind her properties worth about Rs.9 crores, without any legal heir and with a view to grab the abovesaid properties, by creating relationship, by way of averments, has filed HCP(MD)No.305/2009, alleging that his mother-in- law Keppammal, sister of Chandrika, was suspected to have been abducted by one Palanisamy. Since a woman missing case in Crime No.261/2009 was registered, to trace out the said Keppammal, this Court closed HCP(MD)305/2009, with a direction to the Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, to continue investigation of the case.
21. Thereafter, the petitioner filed HCP(MD)880/2010 in this Court with the name of S.V.Nagarajan, S/o.Venkataramakrishnan, for a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, to produce one Venkataramakrishnan S/o.Suryakumar, alleging that one Sivakumar had abducted the former. Lateron, he sought for permission of this Court to withdraw the HCP. Accordingly, HCP(MD)No.880/2010, was dismissed as withdrawn.
22. Subsequently, the petitioner filed HCP(MD)No.1235/2012 for a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, and the Inspector of Police, Sempatty Police Station, to produce the corpus of the petitioner's grandfather Mallaiyan.
23. The Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station, has further submitted that in Habeas Corpus Petition(MD)1235/12, the petitioner made a false claim that his mother Saroja, was the daughter of one Mallaiyan, a very rich man of Ambathurai, having 27 acres of land and that the said Mallaiyan was wrongfully detained by the petitioner's brother's son. According to the Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station, the petitioner has made an attempt to claim the properties of the said Mallaiyan. Thus the petitioner is in the habit of claiming himself to be relatives of some persons and to get the properties of rich people, file HCPs, without any records.
24. The Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station has further submitted that his enquiry revealed that the allegation of the petitioner in the present HCP(MD)No.1053/14, that on 24.08.2014, claiming relationship with Pandeeswari as wife and son Nagaraj and that they were abducted by Malarvizhi, 4th respondent in this Habeas Corpus Petition, are made with ulterior motive.
25. The Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station, has further submitted that the allegations of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 have illegally detained the petitioner's wife and son, threatened the petitioner with dire consequences, that they would murder his wife and son, are totally false.
26. It is further submitted by the Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station, that his enquiry revealed that the allegations of the petitioner in his petition dated 26.08.2014 are false and it was further revealed that VLB Trust was established about 27 years ago, by late V.L.Balakrishna Naidu, a leading Industrialist in Coimbatore, who owned Textile Mills and engaged in Engineering Industry and other allied business. Now the 4th respondent Malarvizhi is the Chairperson of VLB Trust. In Sri Krishna Trust, the other trustee are only family members. Sri Krishna College of Arts & Science, Sri Krishna College of Technology, Sri Krishna Polytechnic College and Sri Krishna Institute of Management are being successfully run by VLB Trust. Sri Krishna College of Engineering and Technology is run by Sri Krishna Trust. In view of the above, the Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station has submitted that the petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition No.1053/14, to blackmail the 4th respondent, for unlawful gain. For the abovesaid reasons, the Inspector of Police, Palani Town Police Station, has prayed for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.
Heard Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused all the cause papers in HCP(MD)Nos.305/09, 880/10, 1235/12, and the present HCP(MD)No.1053/14 and the orders passed thereon.
27. In HCP(MD)No.305/2009 describing himself as V.Nagarajan, son of Vellaisamy, Hindu, aged about 39 years, residing at No.264, Kendisampatti, A.Naduppatti Post, Ambatturai via, Dindigul-302, the petitioner has filed a Habeas Corpus Petition, praying for a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, and the Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul, to produce Kappammal w/o.Late.G.N.Venkatapathy, claiming herself to be the mother-in-law of the petitioner and illegally detained by the 3rd respondent therein, before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty.
28. In this Habeas Corpus Petition (MD)No.305 of 2009, the petitioner has claimed that his first wife Eisa died. According to him, her mother's name is Kappammal. He has described Kappammal as the wife of Late.G.N.Venkatapatty. According to the petitioner, the said G.N.Venkatapatty was doing cultivation in the lands belonging to the petitioner and also of the lands of the petitioner's brothers, Paunraj, Thangaraj and Perumalsamy in the village at Periakottai, Dindigul Taluk. The petitioner therein has stated that he owned properties in Survey No.717/A. The petitioner has described one Palanisamy S/o.Late.Perumal Goundan as his mother's younger brother and that the said Palanisamy had attempted to encroach upon his property, with bad motive. According to the petitioner, he received a telephone call on 25.04.2009 from Mr.Palanisamy that he killed Kappammal on 01.04.2009. Immediately the petitioner went to the village and she was not there. Hence, he lodged a complaint and thereafter filed HCP(MD)305/2009, for production of the said Kappammal. The petitioner, describing himself as V.Nagarajan, son of Vellaisamy, therein, has enclosed two complaints each dated 27.04.2009, said to have been addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai Police Station, Dindigul. Absolutely, no proof has been filed, for sending the abovesaid complaints and no acknowledgments have been produced. Habeas Corpus Petition No.305/2009 has been filed on 29.04.2009.
29. In HCP(MD)No.305/2009, this Court, by order, dated 09.07.2009, has passed the following order:-
"Alleging that his mother-in-law, Kappammal was abducted and kept under illegal custody of the third respondent, the petitioner, son-in-law of the detenu has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking for a direction to cause production of the detenu.
2.We have hard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the third respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
3. The detenu is alleged to have been missing from 25.4.2009. Earlier by order dated 18.6.2009, we have directed the second respondent/Inspector of Police to register the case. The second respondent/Inspector of Police is also present in the Court. On instructions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the case has been registered in Crime No.261/2009 on the file of Vada Madurai Police Station for "woman missing"
and investigation is pending.
4. The learned counsel for the third respondent has submitted that there is a civil dispute between the third respondent and petitioner's father and that Second Appeal No.1237/2008 is pending and that the third respondent has got nothing to do with the missing woman.
5. Since the missing detenu is stated to be aged 50 years and the case has been registered, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed with a direction to the second respondent to continue with the investigation and keep the petitioner informed of the further progress of the investigation.?
30. The averments of the State that the petitioner, V.Nagarajan, S/o.Vellaisamy, has nothing to do with the missing woman, has not been disputed nor the petitioner has filed any document to prove the relationship. The name of the 3rd respondent therein, is Palanisamy, S/o.Late Perumal Gounder and as per the State version, a civil dispute was stated to be pending between the petitioner's father, Vellaisamy and the 3rd respondent.
31. In HCP(MD)No.880/2010, describing himself as S.V.Nagarajan, son of Venkataramakrishnan, Hindu, aged about 40 years, residing at No.264, Kendichampatti, A.Naduppatti Post, Ambatturai via, Dindigul District, the petitioner has filed a Habeas Corpus Petition, praying for a direction to the Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatty Police Station, Dindigul, 2nd respondent therein, to produce the detenue, his father Venkataramakrishnan, S/o.Suriyakumar, aged 58 years, before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty.
32. In this Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner has described Mr.Venkataramakrishnan, as his father. At this juncture, it should be noted that earlier, he has named one Mr.Vellaisamy, as his father in H.C.P.(MD)No.305 of 2009. According to him, the said Venkataramakrishnan had advanced a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to one Sivakumar, said to be the President of Ambathurai Village Panchayat, Authur Taluk, Dindigul District. Sivakumar failed to repay the money borrowed from Venkataramakrishnan, said to be the father of S.V.Nagarajan, despite demand. The petitioner therein has further averred that the said Venkataramakrishnan informed the petitioner that he is receiving anonymous threatening calls and probably, it could be from Sivakumar. Further, submitting that there was a threat to his life and liberty and inaction on the part of the Inspector of Police, the petitioner has filed HCP(MD)No.880/10. Complaint dated 29.09.2010 reads as follows:-
ehd; Bkw;fz;l Kfthpapy; epue;jukhf trpj;J tUfpBwd;. vdJ je;ij btA;fl;uhkfpU&;zd;, j/bg.R{hpaf;Fkhh; vd;gth; jpz;Lf;fy; khtl;lk; Mj;J]h; tl;lk;;, mk;ghj;Jiu Cuhl;rp kd;w jiytuhf cs;s jpU.V.rptf;Fkhh; vd;gth; tPl;oy; nUe;J te;jhh;. vd; je;ijaplk; Bkw;go rptf;Fkhh; U.4,00,000/- fld; bgw;Ws;shh;. Bkw;go flid vd; je;ij jpUk;g Bfl;ljhy; mtiu bfhiy bra;a[k; Behf;Fld; Bkw;go rptf;Fkhh; bray;gLtjhf bjhpfpwJ. ehd; vd; je;ijia ghh;f;f brd;wBghJ jpU.rptf;Fkhh; mjw;F kWg;g[ bjhptpj;J tUfpwhh;. vdJ je;ij vA;F nUf;fpwhh; vd;gBj bjhpahj epiyapy; cs;Bsd;. mth; capUld; cs;shuh ny;iyah vd;gBj mr;rkhf cs;sJ.
vdBt rKfk; ma;ah mth;fs; vd; je;ij btA;fl;uhkfpU&;zid fz;Lgpoj;J xg;gilf;Fk;go Bfl;Lf;bfhs;fpBwd;.
33. In this complaint, name of the complainant is Nagarajan, son of Venkataramakrishnan. Address mentioned in the above two Habeas Corpus Petitions, remains the same. Name of the petitioner's father is Venkataramakrishnan, S/o.Suriyakumar. After hearing the parties, this Court on 04.10.2010, has passed the following order:-
?The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of a direction to the second respondent to produce the detenu, the petitioner's father, Venkataramakrishnan, S/o.Suriyakumar, aged 58 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.
2.The petitioner as well as one Vellaisamy, who is said to be the father of the petitioner, is present before this Court. Apart from the presence of the above said persons, one Sivakumar, who is the Panchayat Board President of Ambathurai village is also present.
3.The petitioner claimed in the affidavit filed before this Court in support of this petition that his father one Venkataramakrishnan was kept under the illegal custody of the said Sivakumar, Panchayat Board President.
4.Mr.K.Samidurai, learned counsel appearing for the Sivakumar, Panchayat Board President has submitted before this Court that the said Sivakumar has nothing to do with the father of the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is a life convict and he has been released after serving the sentence in the year 2008 and he is going on to make complaints against several persons and blackmailing them by demanding money. It is contended that likewise, the petitioner, has come forward with the present petition throwing unwarranted allegations against the said Sivakumar, who is a respectable person and also a Panchayat President.
5.The second respondent police has also produced one Mr.Vellaisamy, who claimed that he is the father of the petitioner herein. The ration card of the said Mr.Vellaisamy is also produced before this Court and the perusal of the same reveals that the petitioner's name has been mentioned as son of the said Vellaisamy.
6.The learned Addition' Public Prosecutor would also contend that the petitioner was implicated in a murder case and in the remand report of the murder case also, it is specifically stated that the petitioner is the son of Vellaisamy and his father name is not Venkatakrishnan.
7.In view of all these overwhelming materials, the petitioner, who has appeared before this Court in person submitted that he is having other records and documents to substantiate his claim that only one Venkatakrishnan is his father and he is now under the illegal detention of the said Mr.Sivakumar, Panchayat Board President.
8.In view of such position, this Court is constrained to adjourn the matter to 19.10.2010.
Post on 19.10.2010.?
34. Perusal of the order dated 04.10.2010 shows that Mr.K.Samidurai has appeared for Sivakumar, against whom, allegations have been made. Counter affidavit of the said Sivakumar reads that as per the Ration Card, name of the petitioner's father is one Vellaisamy Gounder. But in HCP(MD)No.880/2010, the petitioner has described his father as one Venkataramakrishnan. He has also stated that the petitioner was convicted in Crime No.1140/94 for the offences under Sections 302, 379, 201 r/w 34 IPC, wherein, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.1. Sivakumar in his affidavit has also stated that in the criminal case, name of the petitioner's father has been mentioned as Vellaisamy Gounder. He has also pointed out that one of the witnesses in the settlement deed, the petitioner therein has mentioned that his father's name as Vellaisamy. He has also signed as a witness in the sale deed, where he has mentioned his father's name as Vellaichamy. As per the voters list for the year 2009, for Authur Legislative Assembly, the name of the petitioner's father has figured at Serial No.165, where his father's name has been mentioned as Palanichamy. As per the voters list for the year 2010, for Authur Legislative Assembly, the name of the petitioner's father figured at Serial No.165, where his father's name has been mentioned as Venkataramakrishnan. Sivakumar in his affidavit has denied borrowal of Rs.4,00,000/- from the so-called petitioner's father.
35. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 02.11.2010, conveniently, the petitioner has withdrawn the Habeas Corpus Petition. Accordingly, HCP(MD)No.880/2010 has been dismissed as withdrawn. Thus it could be seen that when the petitioner has made false averments, claiming himself to be the son of Venkataramakrishnan and attempted to create some sort of relationship with the said Venkataramakrishnan and when the records produced before this Court revealed, that his father's name in various documents has been mentioned as Vellaichamy Gounder and not Venkataramakrishnan, the petitioner has conveniently withdrawn HCP(MD)No.880/10 on 02.11.2010. It is also to be noted that submissions of the learned counsel for Mr.Sivakumar placed on record that after serving the sentence in a murder case and released thereafter, the petitioner had been making complaints against several persons and blackmailing them, by demanding money, have not been refuted.
36. Upon perusal of the documents filed by Sivakumar, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has also recorded that Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station, Dindigul, has produced one Vellaichamy and the said person has also stated before this Court that he is the father of the petitioner therein. Ration card of the said Vellaichamy has also been produced. Upon perusal of the same, the Hon'ble Division Bench has recorded that the name of the petitioner's father has been mentioned as Vellaichamy. Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in the remand report of the murder case, name of the petitioner's father has been mentioned as Vellaichamy and not as Venkataramakrishnan, has also been recorded.
37. Subsequently, describing himself as S.V.Nagarajan, son of Venkataramakrishnan, Hindu, aged about 40 years, residing at No.264, Kendichampatti, A.Naduppatti Post, Dindigul District, HCP(MD)No.1235/2012 is stated to have been filed, praying for a direction to the Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, Dindigul District, respondents 1 and 2 therein, to produce the petitioner's grandfather namely, Mallayan, aged about 90 years, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
38. Despite the order of this Court in H.C.P.(MD)No.880 of 2010, dated 02.11.2010, again, he has mentioned his father's name as Venkataramakrishnan. In this Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner therein has claimed that he is the son of one Saroja, who is the only daughter of one Mallayan. According to the petitioner, the said Mallayan was his grandfather. He owned about 45 acres of land in Seevalsaragu village and Mullipadi village in Aathur Taluk, Dindigul District. Mallayan claimed to be his grandfather, on the date of filing of HCP(MD)No.1235/2012 was residing at Kovaiputhur in Coimbatore District. According to the petitioner therein (S.V.Nagarajan, son of Venkataramakrishnan), as he was staying away from the abovesaid properties, respondents 3 to 7 therein, namely, 1.Mallaiyan,
2.Mandhiri, 3.Duraisamy, 4.Mathiyalagan and 5.Murugan of Kurumbapatti, Ambathurai village, Aathur Tk, Dindigul District, in order to grab the above said properties, have forged a document, as if, they are the sons of his grandfather, Mallayan. According to the petitioner therein, the above named persons are the sons of one Vellaiya Gounder. The petitioner has further alleged that respondents 3 to 7 therein, by impersonation and forgery, sold the entire lands of his grandfather Mallayan. After coming to know of the above said facts, the petitioner therein lodged a complaint to the Land Grabbing Cell, Dindigul District. They failed to take action. Hence, his grandfather was constrained to file Crl.O.P(MD)No.2526 of 2012, for a direction to register a case. Vide order dated 29.03.2012, this Court directed the official respondents therein, to enquire into the complaint.
39. In the supporting affidavit of HCP(MD)1235/2012, the petitioner therein has alleged that one Bolaya Gounder, 8th respondent therein, had approached his so-called grandfather Mallayan that he would solve the issues with the respondents 3 to 7. It was also agreed to, by his grandfather, Mallayan, who was stated to be 90 years old, at the time of filing of HCP(MD)No.1235/12. According to the petitioner, the said Mallayan met Bolaya Gounder and informed of all the facts. On 25.04.2012, the said Bolaya Gounder, 8th respondent therein, met the petitioner's so-called grandfather Mallayan at Sempatti Bus Stand and both of them went to a place known to the 8th respondent, for settling the matter with respondents 3 to 7. After that, the said Mallayan did not return. The petitioner therein made hectic steps. From enquiry at Sempatti Bus Stand, he came to know that his grandfather and 8th respondent went to meet respondents 3 to 7 therein. Even though the whereabouts of the said Mallayan, were not known, the petitioner therein went to Bolaya Gounder's house and that it was locked. Neighbours informed him that door was locked for a long time. According to the petitioner therein, his grandfather Mallayan was kidnapped by respondents 3 to 7, against his will and was in illegal custody. On the above averments, he filed HCP(MD)No.1235/2012.
40. The Inspector of Police, Sempatti Police Station, Dindigul District, 2nd respondent in HCP(MD)No.1235/2012, has submitted that his investigation revealed that there was no such person, ever lived in the address given or that the said Mallayan was not the grandfather of the petitioner therein. He has detailed the criminal cases registered in various police stations against the petitioner. When notice was ordered, the Inspector of Police, Sempatty Police Station, Dindigul District, filed a Status Report dated 23.11.2012, which is extracted hereunder:-
2.It is most humbly submitted that the petitioner herein has prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the body of his grand-father Mallayan and set him at liberty is not maintainable inasmuch as the investigation revealed that no such person ever lived in the address given or that the said Mallayan is not the grandfather of the petitioner herein.
3.It is most humbly submitted that the investigation taken up so-far revealed that the petitioner herein hails from Thanneerpandal village, H/o.Seelapadi, Dindigul Taluk. His father's name is Vellaichamy and his mother's name is Veerathimmu Ammal. His claim that he is the son of one Tr.Venkataramakrishnan is totally false. The petitioner herein was a once a convict prisoner having been awarded with life sentence in Crime No.1140/1994 of Dindigul Taluk Police Station for the offences under Section2 302, 379, 201 r/w 34 IPC. He underwent conviction in Central Prison, Coimbatore, as well as at Madurai. He was pre-maturely released on the occasion of the Anna Birth Centenary Celebrations on 15th September, 2008. During his prison term, his wife Pandeeswari went and lived with his mother-in-law Subbammal at Kendhihampatti village as she has no one to look after her. As per the voter list for the year 2009 relating to Attur Assembly Constituency, the petitioner's name figure in Sl.No.165 where his father's name is mentioned as Palanisamy. In several documents he has given his father's name as Vellaichamy Gounder. As per the electoral roll relating to Attur Assembly Constituency for the year 2010, the petitioner has contrived to give his father's name as Venkataramakrishnan.
4.It is most respectfully submitted that the said Tr.Venkataramakrishnan is also a convict prisoner having been convicted for life imprisonment in the famous 'Vinodhan murder case' Coimbatore B2 Police Station Crime No.1018/1993 under Section 302 r/w 120(B) and 109 IPC and he was undergoing imprisonment at the Coimbatore Central Prison from 26.08.2003.
The said Venkataramakrishnan, S/o.Suriyakumar is an inhabitant of 720, Avinishi Road, VLB House, Coimbatore. The petitioner herein filed HCP 880 of 2010 before this Hon'ble Court that the said Venkataramakrishnan was his father and that he prayed for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the detenu. Unfortunately, the said Venkataramakrishnan hanged himself inside the Coimbatore Prison on 20.10.2009 itself. When this and other facts were about to be filed before this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner herein withdrew the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
5.It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner herein having come to know that large chunk of properties and educational institutions are being run under the aegis of V.L.B. Trust is for grab and that the properties belonging to detenu Mallayan is also available, he scripted and contrived herein contrived to prefer several false complaints before the authorities since 2010 to lend credence to his concoction. The sound and tenor of the petitions are identical and even the signatures of several individuals looks identical. A notice dated 24.12.2011 purported to have been issued in the name of the detenu Mallayan also look alike signifying a diabolical scheming just a leaf out of a celluloid picturaisation.
6.With reference to the averment of the petitioner herein in paragraph 2 of the affidavit, it is most humbly submitted that the detenu herein has sent complaint to the Inspector of Police, Land Grab Section, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, dated 28.02.2012 that he is aged 98 years and that he is residing at V.L.B. Trust, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore and that he had one daughter by name Saroja and she married one Venkataramakrishnan, S/o.Suriyakumar, residing 702 Avanishi Road, VLB Illam, Coimbatore about 40 years ago on her own and they begot one Nagarajan and while Nagarajan was five years old, both Saroja and her husband died. Then his grandson Nagarajan was looked after by Vellaichamy-Veeranagammmmal of Dindigul and after their demise, he is bringing up his grandson Nagarajan and that since he is aged and with a view to hand over his properties to his grandson Nagarajan, he came across the information that his properties were usurped by Mallayan and four others on the guise of them being his sons and hence prayed for action against them and to retrieve the properties. It was found during the investigation that the said Mallayan is not residing in the address given by him nor associated with VLB Trust and even the details furnished by him was far-fetched as the said Venkataramakrishnan who hanged himself as a convict prisoner in the Central Prison, Coimbatore on 20.10.2009 at the age of 43 could never have married the said Saroja 40 years ago. As per the legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Tmt.S.Malarvizhi, wife, aged 44 years,l N.Suriyakumar, mother, aged 59 were certified as the legal heirs of the deceased Venkataramakrishnan. Enquiry with the Village Administrative Officer, Kuniyamuthur Village, Coimbatore, confirmed that no such person as Mallayan was a resident of Kovaipudur, VLB Trust which was further confirmed by the statement given by the General Manager, VLB Trust that no such person by name was ever associated with VLB Trust and residing in the address given by him and that only Tmt.S.Malarvizhi, the wife of the deceased Venkataramakrishnan is the Managing Trustee. Inasmuch as the complaint was false and concocted only with the intention of tying two properties by clever manipulation and diabolic orchestration, no action could be taken on the petition.
7.With reference to the averment of the petitioner in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit, it is humbly submitted that the averments are concocted, frivolous, nebulous and devoid of proof. It was also brought to light that the incident as narrated dated 25.04.2012 could never have occurred inasmuch the said Bolaya Gounder, who was a retired employee of Southern Railway and who was alleged to have taken the detenu from Sempatti bus stand on 25.04.2012 died on 13.03.2011 itself and his wife Nagammal died on 22.12.2011 leaving their daughter Lakshmi.
8.It is most respectfully submitted that as a wheel within wheel, one petition was allegedly sent by S.Venkataramakrishnan to the Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatti Police Station dated 27.09.2010 alleging that one Sivakumar, the President of Ambathurai Village Panchayat has cheated him to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- and since no proof was forthcoming no action was taken. It is also stated in the petition that the said Venkataramakrishnan arrayed as accused in RS Puram Police Station Crime No.1018/1993 is evading arrest which was totally false and as already stated the said Venkataramakrishnan, a convict for life hanged himself on 20.10.2009.
9.It is most humbly submitted that the petitioner herein has also sent a petition to the District Collector, Dindigul on 27.08.2011 that the will purported to have been executed by Venkataramakrishnan bequeathing his properties in favour of his adopted son namely the petitioner herein has been stolen and the whereabouts of his wife is not known and he suspects the role of Malarvizhi. In the said petition, he has given the name of Vellaisamy as his father. Several cases are pending against the petitioner herein both in Coimbatore and at Dindigul Districts wherein the petitioner herein is alleged to have attempted extortion of money by threatening of filing cases against them in this Hon'ble Court.
10.It is most humbly submitted that the thorough investigation taken up revealed that there is no such person by name Mallayan, aged 98 as claimed by him or 90 as given by the petitioner herein, and detenu is only a creation for reasons best known to the petitioner herein. It appears that the days spent in prison as a life convict, instead of reforming him, has given the petitioner herein as new lease of life and a new profession in larceny, threat, concoction and fabrication. He has resorted to sending petitions without any iota of truth and instituted judicial proceedings before this Hon'ble Court on false premises, with a view to land himself on properties by putting fear in the minds of people with a view to force them to part with property and money and in the process indulged in abusing the judicial process by false and tall claims which totally false and bereft of an iota of truth. Hence it is humbly submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed.?
41. After the filing of the status report, which exposed the conduct of the petitioner therein and the modus operandi, a memo dated 21.01.2012, has been filed by Mr.A.K.Manickam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, withdrawing his appearance. Thereafter, taking note of the withdrawal of the appearance, notice was ordered to the petitioner therein. Subsequently, on 19.06.2013, this Court, passed the following order:-
?Since the earlier counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn his appearance, this Court directed notice to be served on the petitioner. Despite notice having been taken, service is awaited. In the meanwhile, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that this petitioner has been detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore, under preventive detention and he further adds that the petitioner has been facing a number of charges.
2.Explaining the above facts, the second respondent/Inspector of Police, Sempatti Police Station, who is present before this Court, is directed to file a report to enable this Court to pass appropriate orders in the next hearing.
Post the matter on 28.06.2013.?
42. On 10.07.2014, this Court passed the following order:-
?Record of proceedings shows that following the withdrawal of the learned counsel on record in HCP(MD)No.1235 of 2012, this Court has directed the Registry to issue notice to the petitioner on 22.01.2013. As per the endorsement of the Registry in the notice sent to the petitioner, service is awaited and therefore, fresh notice was ordered on 08.02.2013.
2.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, in his letter D.No,151/2013, dated 05.02.2013 addressed to the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, has stated that notice was sent to the Central Prison, Coimbatore, through the above said Court in D.No.150, dated 05.02.2013 for causing service on the petitioner and return to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindigul. However, even in the today's list, the Registry's endorsement remains the same, as service awaited. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has already withdrawn his appearance, the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore, ought to have served the notice sent by this Court on the petitioner and submitted the acknowledgment before this Court.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is directed to instruct the concerned to effect service, to be made on the petitioner.
Post on 22.07.2014.?
43. The Inspector of Police, Sempatty Police Station, Dindigul District, has filed a counter affidavit dated 24.07.2014, wherein, he has stated that the said Mallayan sought to be produced before this Court, never lived in the address given. He has also stated that when HCP(MD)No.1235/2012 came up for hearing, this Court issued notice to the petitioner, through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, and also to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore, in D.No.230/2013 dated 05.02.2013 and 20.02.2013. The same was returned by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore, in his Letter No.13/R1/2013 dated 26.02.2013, stating that no such prisoner was confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore.
44. It is the further statement of the Inspector of Police, Sempatty Police Station, Dindigul District, that on 21.07.2014, he sent one Sub Inspector of Police, namely, Tr.Selvaraj to the Central Prison, Coimbatore, to serve notice on the Remand Prisoner No.6799, Nagaraj, S/o.Vellaisamy Gounder, and on enquiry in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, the said Sub Inspector of Police came to know that the prisoner was detained in Central Prison and that his father's name is Vellaichamy and not Venkataramakrishnan.
45. The Inspector of Police, Sempatty Police Station, Dindigul District, has further stated that on enquiry, it came to light that Nagarajan, by mentioning his father's name as Venkataramakrishnan, has sent various petitions, but his real father's name is Vellaisamy Gounder and not Venkataramakrishnan. The Inspector of Police has further submitted that the name of Nagarajan's grandfather was Perumal and not Mallayan, as claimed. As per the version of the Inspector of Police, Sempatty Police Station, Dindigul District, the petitioner therein had given a statement that he did not file any Habeas Corpus Petition in connection with the so-called grandfather Mallayan. He also submitted, the allegation that Bolaya Gounder met the said Mallayan on 25.04.2012 is absolutely false, for the reason that Bolaya Gounder died on 13.03.2011 itself. Along with the supporting affidavit, the Inspector of Police, Sempatty Police Station, Dindigul District, has filed a Death Certificate of said Bolaya Gounder, the 1st respondent herein. Though the petitioner therein had claimed his mother's name as Saroja and her father's name as Mallayan, the real name of the petitioner's mother is Veera Nagamma and after taking note of the abovesaid facts, supported by material documents, by order, dated 25.07.2014, we dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petition No.1235/2012. The order dated 25.07.2014 is extracted hereunder:-
"Seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus against the official respondent, prayer is sought for to produce the petitioner's grandfather viz., Mallayan, aged about 90 years before this Court.
2.On an earlier occasion, a representation has been made on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has been detained under Act 14 of 1982 vide order dated 02.01.2013.
3.On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents further added that in Crime No.944 of 2012 registered under Section 307 of IPC, the detenu is confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore as a trial prisoner. There are several criminal antecedents.
4.Record of proceedings shows that when there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court has directed the notice to be served on the petitioner. Service is awaited, so far as the notice through court is concerned. However, when notice is sought to be served on the petitioner through the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore, the same has been returned by the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore vide letter No.13/R1/2013, dated 26.02.2013 stating that no such person is confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore.
5.On this day, the Inspector of Police, Sempatti Police Station, Dindigul has filed an affidavit to the effect that on 21.07.2014, when he has deputed a Sub Inspector of Police to visit the Central Prison, Coimbatore to serve notice on the remand prisoner No.6799 Nagaraj, son of Vellaisamy Gounder, he refused to receive the notice. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has another identity card, with name of his father as, Venkatramakrishnan also.
6.On the merits of the case, as to whether there was any detention of Malliyan on the basis of the legal heir certificate dated 27.09.2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Attur Taluk, Dindigul District, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged detenu Maliya Gounder, son of late Sadayandi Gounder died, as early as on 09.03.1979, and that the application made by Malliyan, son of Malliya Gounder, born through his first wife, the legal heir certificate has been issued.
7.Inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in the supporting affidavit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that though an allegation of abduction on 18.02.2012 by the respondent No.8 has been made, respondent No.8 died on 13.03.2011 itself, and on the above documentary evidence and facts submitted, the HCP itself has been filed without any basis.
8.When the alleged detenu himself is stated to have died on 09.03.1979 and that a legal heir certificate has been issued by the Tahsildar, Attur Taluk, Dindigul District and when the 8th respondent had expired on 13.03.2011, the averments in the supporting affidavit that there was an abduction on 18.02.2012 is nothing but a false statement.
9.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also brought to the notice of this Court a letter given by the petitioner that he had not instructed anybody to file any Habeas Corpus Petition. Legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Attur Taluk, Dindigul District dated 27.09.2012 shall be treated as the part of record. Recording the above, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed."
46. Thus it could be seen that in HCP(MD)No.1235/2012, an attempt has been made to create relationship with one Mallayan, aged about 90 years, through the petitioner's alleged so-called mother, Saroja, whereas, his mother's name is Veera Nagamma.
47. Four Habeas Corpus Petitions have been filed. Considering background and the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the police department, we have meticulously examined the affidavits filed in support of each Habeas Corpus Petitions. The name of the petitioner and his father's name, addresses given, in all the four HCPs and the signatures of the petitioner affixed, in all the four petitions are extracted hereunder:-
Sl.No HCP Number Name of the Petitioner Name of the father of the petitioner Address given in the affidavit Signature of the petitioner in the affidavits 1 305/09 V.Nagarajan Vellaisamy No.264, Kendisampatti, A.Naduppatti Post, Ambatturai via, Dindigul-302, 2 880/10 S.V.Nagarajan Venkataramakrishnan No.264, Kendichampatti, A.Naduppatti Post, Ambatturai via, Dindigul District 3 1235/12 S.V.Nagarajan Venkataramakrishnan No.264, Kendichampatti, A.Naduppatti Post, Dindigul District 4 1053/14 S.Venkatramakrishnan @ Nagaraj Suryakumar @ Vellaichamy No.113B/264, Kondichampatti, Nadupatti Post, Aathur Post, Dindigul District
48. In the affidavits filed in support of the Habeas Corpus Petitons, the petitioner has at one stage, has signed his name with initial. Names are differently given. In some other petitions, initial is different. Signatures vary. Claiming that he is somewhat related to some X or Y, without any proof of document, Habeas Corpus Petitions have been filed. When Police filed their counter affidavits or status reports, as the case may be, learned counsel on record file memorandums in the Habeas Corpus Petitions, withdrawing themselves, from the cases.
49. In the present Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner has claimed that he was married to one Pandeeswari. He has described himself as S.Venkatramakrishnan @ Nagaraj, son of Suryakumar @ Vellaichamy.
50. Perusal of the entire cause papers in the abovesaid four Habeas Corpus Petitions shows that a convict in a murder case, a Goonda under Act 14 of 1982 and a person involved in so many criminal cases, including an attempt on the life of a watchman, for which, a case in B14 Kuniyamuthur Police Station in Crime No.573/14, under Sections 115, 465, 467, 468 and 469 IPC has been registered on 06.08.2014, has abused the process of this Court, filed frivolous Habeas Corpus Petitions and every time, when truth is brought to light, by the Police, the learned counsel have withdrawn their appearance, by filing a memo and thereafter, in one HCP(MD)No.1235/2012, this Court has issued notice to the petitioner therein, who has even denied of giving instructions for filing any Habeas Corpus Petition. As stated supra, the petitioner has withdrawn the Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No.880 of 2010.
51. In the Habeas Corpus Petitions, the petitioner has clamed relationships with some X or Y and filed affidavits and as rightly contended by the State, none of the affidavits are supported with any documents to prove his so-called relationships. On mere averments, relationship is claimed and in the Habeas Corpus Petitions, allegations have been made, as if, some other person is attempting to grab the properties, to which, he is entitled. No sooner, a counter affidavit or status report is filed by the Police, for the reasons, best known, the learned counsel on record, withdraws their appearance. Despite appearance of one Vellaisamy Gounder in the open Court in H.C.P.(MD)No.880 of 2010, the petitioner has again filed another W.P.(MD)No.1235 of 2012, claiming that Venkatachalam, is his father. In none of the Habeas Corpus Petitions, the petitioner has come forward to file any reply affidavit or file any documents. Only copies of complaints have been enclosed.
52. Object is to gain unjust enrichment. He has not changed his attitude. The propensity to abuse the process of law, has continued, though three writ petitions have been dismissed earlier. The modus operative of filing Habeas Corpus Petitions, by making averments in the supporting affidavits, after sending false complaints to the police authorities, implicating some persons and thereafter, filing Habeas Corpus Petitions and the moment a status report or counter affidavit is filed, the writ petition are either withdrawn or the respective learned counsel withdraws his memo of appearance, has become the conscipious feature. Modus operandi is apparent. The object of knocking away somebody's property, with a evil design, by creating some sort of relationship in the complaints sent to the police, and thereafter filing Habeas Corpus Petitions, to get orders, is per se apparent. As a matter of fact, not even in one Habeas Corpus, the averments made by him, have been substantiated. By filing frivolous complaints to the police, and thereafter, filing Habeas Corpus and his indigenous attempt to create relationships, whenever huge property is involved, is amply elaborated in the status reports/counter affidavit filed by the Police. Investigation is duly supported by documents produced by the either private party, against whom allegations are made or by the police. The object of filing complaints is nothing but harassment and the fraud played on the Court by giving different names of the petitioner, different names of his father, and signing in different manner in the affidavits, is per se apparent from perusal of the affidavits and vakalats. Attempt to manipulate and abuse of process of Court, with a criminal intent, are substantiated. Continuous proceedings initiated by the petitioner, exhibit his propensity to abuse the process of law, with an ulterior motive of enrichment. If the projected so-called relationship, ?mask is removed?, then the intention is behind filing Habeas Corpus Petition is clear.
53. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is equitable. It is not meant for manipulations and for those, who abuse the process of law and attempt to create records, by making false averments and thereby, attempt to achieve wrongful gain.
54. In M.V. Venkataramana Bhat vs Returning Officer And Tahsildar reported in 1993 (4) SCC 317, the Supreme Court held that, ?It is but proper and higher duty of the High Court to see that its judicial process is not abused and its order does not become an instrument or aid to overreach the adversary and when that interference or finding could be reached on proper consideration of the facts and circumstances, suitable remedy be given.?
55. In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2008 (1) SCC 560, the Supreme Court, on the facts and circumstances of the case and after observing that filing of the writ petition, by suppressing material facts, would amount to abuse of process of law, dismissed the writ petition, with a cost of Rs.50,000/-. At Paragraphs 12 and 16, held as follows:
?12. As the law operating in the field has recently been laid down by this Court in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India [(2007) 6 SCC 120] in the following terms, it is not necessary to reiterate the same over again. However, therein in the peculiar fact of the matter, it was observed:
"20. In this case, however, suppression of filing of the suit is no longer a material fact. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court may be correct that, in a case of this nature, the court's jurisdiction may not be invoked but that would not mean that another writ petition would not lie. When another writ petition is filed disclosing all the facts, the appellant would be approaching the writ court with a pair of clean hands, the court at that point of time will be entitled to determine the case on merits having regard to the human right of the appellant to access to justice and keeping in view the fact that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution of India."
..........
16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M/s.Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and Another [(1980) 3 SCC 311], this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt.
56. In Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors., reported in (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 249, the Supreme Court slapped the petitioner therein, with a cost of Rs.2 Lakhs, for the wrongdoer.
57. Conduct of the petitioner is condemnable. Every time, when Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, police is constrained to make a detailed investigation of the averments made in each of the supporting affidavits, collect materials from the places, where the respondents are stated to be residing, collect materials from public authorities and ultimately, when a detailed status report/counter affidavit is filed, exposing the motive for filing the Habeas Corpus Petition, either the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner withdraws his memo and the party thereafter, never engages a fresh counsel, or the petitioner chooses to appear in person.
58. In none of the Habeas Corpus Petitions, the petitioner has enclosed any documents to prove the relationship with any of the parties alleged to have been kidnapped or detained. In H.C.P.(MD)No.1235 of 2012, he has made false averments to the effect that one Bolaiah Gounder, met the petitioner's so-called grandfather, Mallaiyan on 25.04.2012 to settle the dispute, but the said Bolaiah Gounder died on 13.03.2011. Tendency to prejure is apparent. The petitioner has been indulging in frivolous litigation. Though it is a fit case to refer the matter under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, considering the indisputed material on record, we are of the view that Habeas Corpus Petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.
59. In the result, Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. Considering the modus operandi of the petitioner as narrated above, we impose a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be payable by the petitioner herein to the official respondents 1 to 3. Police is at liberty to take action against the petitioner for filing false affidavits in the Court and also for recovery of the costs.
To
1) The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.
3) The Inspector of Police, Palani Nagar Police Station, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.