Madras High Court
M.Vadivel vs The Superintendent Of Police on 13 August, 2015
Author: R.Mala
Bench: R.Mala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12859 of 2015
M.Vadivel ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Karur District,
Karur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
K.Paramathi Police Station,
Karur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to direct the second respondent to register a F.I.R based
on the complaint of the petitioner dated 29.10.2013 in C.S.R.No.172 of 2013.
!For Petitioner : Mr.L.Madhusudhanan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Anbarasan
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
:ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking a direction, directing the respondent police to register the complaint based on the complaint given by him on 29.10.2013 in C.S.R.No.172 of 2013, stating that the petitioner herein who is working as a Teacher stated that on 29.10.2013 at 08.00 p.m he received a phone call from his land line phone and a lady in the opposite side threatened him with dire consequences and using un- parliamentary words.
2. The petitioner's mother invoked the Right to Information Act, on 26.10.2013, raising questions about the personal details from the Chief Educational Officer, Karur,. Hence, he gave a complaint before the second respondent on 29.10.2013 for which CSR No.172 of has been given on 30.10.2013 and they also called for a report from the BSNL and the report from the BSNL dated 27.11.2013 was received and without conducting an enquiry, the same was closed on 30.11.2013. But, the document would show that the petitioner as well as the Chief Educational Officer sent the explanation only on 11.12.2013 without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and the Chief Educational Officer only in a hasty manner, closed the complaint. Hence, he prayed for a direction to register the case.
3. He further submitted that since he has given a complaint, he would be suspended from service on 07.02.2014, but that has been questioned by him, this Court by an order dated 25.02.2014 in W.P(MD)No.2618 of 2014, the suspension order has been set aside and subsequently he was issued a transfer order on 04.03.2014. He further submitted that the Chief Educational Officer gave a complaint, on which the Crime No.264 of 2014 has been registered for the offences under Sections 353 and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, in which, he was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody. Hence, the suspension order dated 05.05.2014 was issued against him and that has been set aside by this Court in W.P(MD)No.8356 of 2014 dated 21.05.2014 and also filed a petition for quashing the Crime No.264 of 2014 in Crl.O.P(MD)no.14346 of 2014, in which the stay has been granted for investigation. Hence, taking vengeance against the petitioner the respondent police without conducting an enquiry the same was closed. Hence, he prays for a direction.
4. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner herein gave a complaint in C.S.R.No.172 of 2013 and as per the report from BSNL, the call duration is only 16 seconds and on enquiry, it revealed that she has made an enquiry. Hence, on that basis only, it was closed. He further submitted that the petitioner is making the allegations over the officials. He has sent a un-authorised e-mail and named e-mail to the Joint Director of School Education. On the basis of the complaint given by Thiruvalarselvi, the case was registered against the petitioner. A perusal of the records would show that the petitioner and Thiruvalarselvi are at logger-heads. But, the complaint given by the petitioner on 29.10.2013, and the information obtained from the Right to Information Act, by the petitioner would show that the enquiry was conducted and closed on 31.11.2013. But, the explanation submitted by the petitioner is only on 11.12.2013, and the explanation submitted by Thiruvalarselvi, is on 11.12.2013. Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the complaint dated 29.10.2013 was closed.
5. Therefore, it is a fit case for giving a direction to the Superintendent of Police concerned to look into the matter in person and appoint an Officer to make enquiry in respect of the complaint dated 29.10.2013 in accordance with law and register a case, if any cognizable offence is made out, by following the dictum of the Honourable Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & others reported in [2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC)].
6. With the above direction, the closure order dated 30.11.2013, is hereby set aside and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. NOE:I.T. ON 19.08.2015 To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.
2.The Inspector of Police, K.Paramathi Police Station, Karur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..