Madras High Court
Thiru Venkata Saravanan @ S.A.R. ... vs State, Represented By Its Secretary, ... on 25 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005CRILJ2460
Author: M. Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam, C. Nagappan
ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. Venkata Saravanan @ S.A.R. Prasanna Venkatachariar Chathurvedi, petitioner herein, has been detained by the order of the detaining authority, dated 15.12.2004, branding him as a "Goonda". The said order is the subject matter of challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition, filed by the detenu himself.
2. The main point urged by Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is, that the detaining authority has not noted any adverse case against the petitioner, coming under Chapters XVI,XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code nor the detaining authority had come to the conclusion that the detenu is a 'Goonda' or that the petitioner has acted contrary to the public order and, on the other hand, the acts committed by the petitioner, as stated in the grounds of detention, do not constitute the acts, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, but only the acts detrimental to the maintenance of law and order; hence, the detention order is incurably defective and the same is liable to be quashed.
3. The seven incidents, which took place between the years 2002 and 2004, quoted in the grounds of detention order, dated 15.12.2004, by which the petitioner was detained under Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a 'Goonda', are given below.
4. Firstly, on 04.11.2004, a complaint was given by one B. Suresh against the petitioner, which was registered in Crime No. 582 of 2004, for the offences under Sections 120B, 341, 323, 324, 448, 452, 406, 420, 294, 363, 363A, 376, 348, 506(II)), 509, 508, 354, 503, 384, 397, 427 and 380 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act,1998. The contents of the said complaint, in brief, are as follows:
"The detenu Venkata Saravanan @ S.A.R. Prasanna Venkatachariyar Chathurvedi, posing himself as a spiritual mentor, has been running Ramanuja Mission Trust in Chennai since 2000. The complainant B. Suresh used to attend Chathurvedi's spiritual discourses at the Mission along with his wife Sivagamasundari and daughters Priyamvadha and Manasa. The said Chathurvedi, exploiting their faith in God, collected donations, gold, jewels, silver items etc. from Suresh and developed a sexual intercourse with his elder daughter Priyamvadha and also with his wife Sivagamasundari. On being questioned by Suresh after coming to know of the same, Chathurvedi assaulted him and threatened that he would spoil his entire family. Chathurvedi also began to torture second minor daughter Manasa and the same was also questioned. Then, Chathurvedi sent his associate one Sripathi to Suresh house, who forcibly kept Suresh, his wife and daughter in a locked room and confined them for four days. Their Signatures were also obtained in blank papers. On 17.09.2004, Sivagamasundari and her first daughter Priyamvadha were taken to Hyderabad by force by Chathurvedi. On complaint, Police Party went to Hyderabad on 05.11.2004, arrested Chathurvedi on 06.11.2004. Thereafter, he was produced before XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. In the meantime, on the confession of Chathurvedi, the whereabouts of Sivagamasundari and her daughter Priyamvadha were found out and they were rescued."
5. The second incident would relate to the complaint, given on 12.11.2004 by Vijayalakshmi, which was registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 384, 109 r/w. 34 and 506-II IPC. According to her, she used to attend the spiritual discourses of Chathurvedi. Since her daughter left her house and married one Saravanan without her consent, she requested Chathurvedi to help her daughter to come back and join her; for which, he demanded a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh and she offered the same. Later when she met Chathurvedi to get his blessings, he told her that she was having cancer and it could be cured by him, provided she paid a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs. Accordingly, she offered jewels worth about Rs. 6.00 lakhs. Subsequently, she came to know that she had no cancer and was cheated. So, she approached Chaturvedi and asked for return of the amount. Then, Chathurvedi threatened and told her to get out of his place. He also asked his associates to throw her out on the road side, which was, accordingly, done.
6. Thirdly, one another complaint was given by Suresh on 13.11.2004, with reference to the offence under Section 506-I IPC, which was registered in Crime No. 594 of 2004. As per the said complaint, after his lodging the complaint on 04.11.2004, he was invariably receiving threatening phone calls from a purported devotee of Chathurvedi, insisting on him to withdraw the complaint against Chathurvedi, and if he did not yield to his directions, he would resort to spoil the image of the family members, by publishing all unwanted allegations.
7. The fourth complaint was given by one M. Thirugnanam on 19.11.2004, which was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 420 read with 120B IPC in Crime No. 598 of 2004. According to him, there was a property dispute between himself and his brother Palanichamy, who is a devotee of Chathurvedi. He met Chathurvedi and asked him to settle the dispute, for which Chathurvedi asked a sum of Rs. 30.00 lakhs, stating, if it is given, he would ask Palanichamy to withdraw the cases against him in the Court. Accordingly, he paid said amount to Chathurvedi. On coming to know that he was cheated, when he went to Chathurvedi's house and requested him to return the amount, Chathurvedi threatened him and asked their associates to attack and kill him, who, in turn, picked up iron pipes and logs and began to chase and attack him.
8. The fifth case would relate to the complaint given by one V. Ramanathan on 20.11.2004, with regard to the offences under Sections 420 and 506-I IPC. According to Ramanathan, since his real estate business was dull, Chathurvedi induced him that he would do special pooja and collected Rs. 1.00 lakh. Since there was no improvement in the business, when Ramanathan asked Chathurvedi for return of money, Chathurvedi threatened him, saying that he would convert him into a goat or make him dumb. Then, Ramanathan feared danger to his life and escaped from the spot.
9. On 20.11.2004, yet another complaint was given by N. Ramakrishnan. As per this complaint, Chathurvedi induced Ramakrishnan that he would do special pooja for getting good business and demanded Rs. 1.00 lakh. Accordingly, Ramakrishnan handed over Rs. 45,000/- and later came to know that he was cheated.
10. The next complaint is given by S. Jayachandran on 20.11.2004, for the offence under Section 420 IPC. According to Jayachandran, he used to visit Chathurvedi's Ashramam and get his blessings. Since his sister-in-law was suffering from a heart disease, he approached Chathurvedi, for which he demanded a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for doing pooja. However, no treatment was given to her and later she died. Then, he came to know that he was cheated.
11. The above seven cases registered against Chathurvedi and others are highlighted by the sponsoring authority, by placing the materials through the report before the detaining authority.
12. The crux of the report filed by the sponsoring authority would indicate that several persons were cheated by Chathurvedi, by posing himself as a spiritual mentor and obtaining money and gold jewels and also having sexual intercourse with the devotees' wives and daughters and blackmailing the complainants that if they disclose the matter, he would tarnish their family name.
13. Having been satisfied with the materials relating to the activities of Chathurvedi that they are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detaining authority has passed the order, dated 15.12.2004, detaining him as a 'Goonda'.
14. Challenging the said order of detention, dated 15.12.2004, the detenu himself has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition, seeking for quashing of the same and for his consequent release, as indicated above.
15. Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as stated above, though raised several grounds in the petition as well as his submissions, would strongly harp on the main point, namely, that the incidents quoted in the grounds of detention would not attract the public order and, at the most, it would be said that the alleged acts of the detenu were detrimental to the maintenance of law and order, relating to the crimes against the individuals and, hence, the detention order cannot be clamped against the petitioner, especially when there are no materials to brand him as a 'Goonda'. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel would cite the following authorities :
(i) AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 740 (RAM MANOHAR LOHIA V. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.);
(ii) 1970 (1) SUPREME COURT CASES 98 (ARUN GHOSH V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL);
(iii) AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 1086 (T.DEVAKI V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU); and
(iv) 2003 (I) CCR 169 (SC) (DARPANKUMAR SHARMA V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.).
16. On the other hand, Mr. K. Doraisamy, learned Public Prosecutor, on the strength of the decisions given below, would submit that there are materials to conclude that the petitioner/detenu is a Goonda and he has acted contrary to the public order and, in order to prevent his further illegal activities causing disturbance to the public order, the detention order has become necessary and, therefore, the order impugned is perfectly justified. The said decisions are as under :
(i) 2004 (7) SUPREME COURT CASES 467 (COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. V. C. ANITA); and
(ii) 1992 (1) SUPREME COURT CASES 1 (ABDUL SATHAR IBRAHIM MANIK V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.).
17. Since all the grounds raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would revolve around the question of public order, let us now refer to some of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above, in connection with the question of disturbance to the maintenance of public order.
(1) Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility.
(2) It is the degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality, which determines whether the disturbance amounts to a breach of law and order or the public order.
(3) The impact of the incident on the society should be so forceful as to disturb the normal life of the community, thereby shaking the balanced tempo of the orderly life of the general public.
(4) The distinction between the areas of "law and order" and "public order" is one of the degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting "public order" from that concerning "law and order".
(5) The true test is not the kind, but the potentiality of the act in question. The act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality, it may not differ from other similar acts, but in its potentiality, that is, in its impact on society, it may be very different.
18. In the light of the above principles, let us now see the incidents. As indicated above, there are seven incidents, which took place during the period from 2002 to 2004.
19. Out of seven complaints, it is noticed that the complaints given by V. Ramanathan, registered in Crime No. 601 of 2004; N.Ramakrishnan, registered in Crime No. 602 of 2004 and S. Jayachandran, registered in Crime No. 603 of 2004, for the offence under Section 420 IPC, would deal with cheating, the crime committed on the individuals, but, that would not decide the issue, as, in this case, the other complaints given by B. Suresh, registered in Crime No. 582 of 2004; Vijayalakshmi, registered in Crime No. 592 of 2004; another complaint given by Suresh, registered in Crime No. 594 of 2004 and M.Thirugnanam, registered in Crime No. 598 of 2004 would attract various offences, which are the offences coming under Chapters XVI,XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code.
20. The definition of "Goonda" is provided in Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. As per Section 2(f), when a person, either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences, punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code, he is called as a 'Goonda'.
21. As correctly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, powers under Section 3 of the Act can be exercised to make the orders, detaining a certain person only when he is a Goonda. Further, under the Act, the detaining authority must apply its mind to the materials which would show that the said Goonda acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it has become necessary for it to make an order, directing that such a person be detained. Since the offences registered against the detenu would come under the relevant Chapters as indicated above, the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority that the detenu is a "Goonda" cannot be said to be wrong.
22. Let us now see the definition of words "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order", as provided under Section 2(a) of the Act. As per the said definition, in the case of a goonda, when he is engaged or is making preparations for engaging in any of his activities as a goonda, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order.
23. As per the explanation, for the purpose of this clause (a), public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely, or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely, inter alia, if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause (a) directly or indirectly, is causing or calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity, among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or public health.
24. Section 5(A)(a) would provide that the detention order shall not be deemed to be invalid merely because one or some of the grounds is or are (i) vague; (ii) non-existent; (iii) not relevant; (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever.
25. Under Section 5(A)(b), even some of the grounds are vague or not relevant and the detaining authority, making the order of detention, shall be deemed to have made the same, after being satisfied, as provided in that section with reference to the remaining ground or grounds of detention.
26. In the light of the above provisions, we have to see the instances, relating to the other complaints given by Suresh, Vijayalakshmi and Thirugnanam.
27. As per the complaint given by Suresh, the petitioner/detenu, exploiting the faith in God and claiming himself to be a spiritual mentor, collected jewels, silver items, T.V., Cell Phone, Projector etc. from Suresh and his wife. Then, he harassed Sivagamasundari @ Geetha, wife of Suresh, and, ultimately, succeeded to have sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, under threat and cruelty, the petitioner also began to have sexual intercourse with his minor daughter Priyamvadha, aged about 16 years. When this was known to other family members, including Suresh, the same was questioned. Then, the petitioner threatened Suresh, Sivagamasundari and their daughter Priyamvadha and made them to be detained in a locked room and confined for four days. During that time, with the help of his associates, the petitioner obtained signatures of Suresh, Sivagamasundari and their daughter Priyamvadha in blank white papers. They were also threatened that he would disclose the matter and tarnish the image of the family, if they approach police. On 17.09.2004, both Sivagamasundari and her daughter Priyamvadha were forcibly taken to Hyderabad by the petitioner and both of them were sexually harassed in Hyderabad. At this stage, a complaint was given by Suresh. The petitioner was arrested on 05.11.2004 and his confession was recorded. Thereafter, both Sivagmasundari and Priyamvadha were rescued on 06.11.2004 and produced before XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, and were sent for medical examination. In the meantime, the petitioner was taken to police custody and, on his confession, various documents of properties, including silver articles, obscene C.Ds., Computer, Bank Pass Book, and blank papers, signed by Suresh, Sivagamasundari and their daughter, were recovered from his house.
28. The 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of Sivagamasundari and Priyamvadha, made to the Judicial Magistrate, would shock one's conscience, as the details given in the statements would indicate that mother and daughter were subjected to torture and sexual harassment, at the hands of the petitioner/detenu.
29. As held by the Supreme Court, it is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community and it is the length and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting "public order" from that concerning "law and order".
30. The alleged act committed by the petitioner cannot merely be termed as an individual crime, since the potentiality i.e., its impact on the society would certainly disturb the tempo of life of the community.
31. The second incident would relate to the complaint, given by Vijayalakshmi. According to Vijayalakshmi, the petitioner/detenu told her that she was having cancer and he would cure the same; for which he demanded Rs. 5.00 lakhs and, accordingly, she offered gold, diamonds and jewels worth about Rs. 6.00 lakhs to him. Later, she developed suspicion and checked her health with Dr. Siddha, who tested her and told that she had no cancer and she was cheated. Then, she approached the petitioner asking for return of money, who threatened and told her to get out of his Mission. He also instigated his associates, asking them to take her and throw out on the road side. His associates, numbering about six, surrounded her; dragged and pushed her on the road and threatened by uttering that they would kill her, if she came to the Ashramam any more. The public, who were at the spot, noticed the incident and a huge crowd gathered there. Noticing the public, the associates of the petitioner threatened and chased them. In panic, the public left the spot. Vijayalakshmi apprehended danger to her life by the associates of the petitioner. Therefore, she did not choose to give a complaint. Later, she was emboldened to give a complaint, only after she came to know that the petitioner was arrested, in respect of another case.
32. The above details of the incident would clearly indicate the offences committed by the associates, at the instigation of the petitioner, against the lone woman, on a public road, affecting the public traffic and also creating a panic situation, which resulted in the public fearing danger to their lives and leaving the spot.
33. The other incident relates to the complaint, given by M.Thirugnanam. According to him, there is a property dispute between himself and his brother Palanichamy, who is a devotee of the petitioner. There were several cases filed against Thirugnanam by Palanichamy. Hence, Thirugnanam approached the petitioner to find a solution to it. Then, the petitioner demanded several lakhs of rupees from him to settle the matter and to get a share in the disputed property. Accordingly, Thirugnanam collected a sum of Rs. 30.00 lakhs and handed over the same to the petitioner. Then, an agreement was entered into between Thirugnanam and Palanichamy, thereby Palanichamy agreed to withdraw all the cases against Thirugnanam. Subsequently, he came to know that he was cheated, as no steps were taken to withdraw the cases. Therefore, he went to the petitioner's Ashramam and demanded repayment of the amount. Then, the petitioner threatened him by uttering that he would not pay money and he could do whatever he wanted. When Thirugnanam replied by stating that he would report the matter to police, the petitioner threatened him that he would finish him once for all and he asked his associates to attack and kill him. On such an instigation, the associates picked up iron pipes and began to chase Thirugnanam and attack him. The said Thirugnam and others, who came to the Ashramam, escaped danger to their lives. The statements given by Thirugnanam and also the other persons, who were present on the road side, would clearly speak about the details of the occurrence, which took place on the road side. Therefore, the said statements cannot be simply brushed aside, in view of the details given therein by the witnesses, who are the complaining party and also the public, who spoke about the disturbance to the public at the time of occurrence.
34. All these incidents, if put together, would reflect that the potentiality i.e., the impact on the society is so grave and it cannot be said that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority to hold that the petitioner has acted prejudicial to the maintenance of public order is wrong.
35. It is a settled law that it is not for the Court to sit in judgment over the detaining authority and consider various facts set out in the grounds of detention and whether the materials were sufficient for making the order of detention. The only question to be considered by this Court is, whether the materials are relevant for the matters to be decided by the detaining authority.
36. It cannot be debated that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is a subjective one and not an objective one. Hence, if the detention order shows some materials, the sufficiency of which cannot be gone into to arrive at the subjective satisfaction on the part of the authority concerned, then, the Court has no other alternative, except to uphold the same.
37. On a careful consideration of the grounds of detention and the other records, it is obvious, that the detaining authority has highlighted the materials, which would attract various offences under the Chapters, so as to attract the definition of "Goonda" and also to show that the petitioner has indulged in the shocking and illegal activities, which would be detrimental to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, we do not find any reason to hold that the detention order is illegal.
38. Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. Also, the connected H.C.M.P. Nos. 15,18 and 44 of 2005 are dismissed.