Madras High Court
R.Jayakumar Thomas Jayaraj vs The Commissioner Of Police on 21 January, 2016
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.01.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.405 of 2016
R.Jayakumar Thomas Jayaraj ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
S.S.Colony Police Station,
S.S.Colony, Madurai.
3. J.R.Jayanth ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to
direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to take action on the petitioner's
complaint dated 26.12.2015 in accordance with law under the Mental Health
Act, 1987.
!For Petitioner : Mr.I.Suthakaran
^For R1 & R2 : Mrs.S.Prabha
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
:ORDER
This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to take action on the petitioner's complaint dated 26.12.2015 in accordance with law under the Mental Helath Act, 1987.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
i) It is submitted that the 3rd respondent is the younger brother of the petitioner, doing business at Madurai and is a mentall ill person for more than 30 years, pursuant to which, he was admitted in Cadabam Psycho Social Rehabilitation Centre, near Bangalore for Delusional Disorder (Paranoid Schizophrenia). On his discharge from the centre, after a span of time, the sickness got heightened, which caused embarrassment to the family members. Therefore, the 3rd respondent's son arranged for admission of his father at the above Centre once again and on being sensed the same, the 3rd respondent called the police over phone. However, the respondent police, on realizing his activities, asked the 3rd respondent to get admitted in the hospital at Ottanchathiram.
ii) It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent was wrongly under the impression that the petitioner is the cause for admitting him in the hospital and he also gave a public notice through a lawyer in Tamil Dailies, which spoiled the reputation of the petitioner among his bankers, family members, friends, well-wishers, principles, staff members and customers.
Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 1st and the 2nd respondents to secure the 3rd respondent under Sections 23 of Mental Health Act, 1987 and deal with him in accordance with law. Since there was no response or action on his representations, the petitioner has filed this petition for a suitable direction.
3. The wife and the son of the 3rd respondent have filed two separate affidavits, reiterating the averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner and urged this Court to pass suitable orders, directing the respondent police to admit the 3rd respondent in an institution, which provides care and treatment without interruption. Apart from the above, they also undertook to meet out the medical expenses of the 3rd respondent at their costs.
4. Heard both parties and perused the records.
5. Before going into the merits of the matter, it is just and proper to look into the relevant provisions of the Mental Health Act, especially, Sections 20 and 23 of the Act for deciding the present issue. For better appreciation, Sections 20 and 23 of the Act are extracted below:
?20. Application for reception order ? (1) An application for a reception order may be made by -
(a) The medical officer-in-charge of a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home, or
(b) by the husband, wife or any other relative of the mentally ill person.
(2) Where a medical officer-in-charge of a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home in which a mentally ill- person is undergoing treatment under a temporary treatment order is satisfied that -
(a) the mentally ill person is suffering from mental disorder of such a nature and degree that his treatment in the psychiatric hospital or as the case may be, psychiatric nursing home is required to be continued for more than six months, or
(b) It is necessary in the interests of the health and personal safety of the mentally ill person or for the protection of others that such person shall be detained in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home, He may make an application to the Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the psychiatric hospital or, as the case may be, psychiatric nursing home is situated, for the detention of such mentally ill-person under a reception order in such psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home, as the case may be.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5), the husband or wife of a person who is alleged to be mentally ill or, where there is no husband or wife, or where the husband or wife is prevented by reason of any illness or absence from India or otherwise from making the application, any other relative of such person may make an application to the Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the said person ordinarily resides, for the detention of the alleged mentally ill-person under a reception order in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home.
(4) Where the husband or wife of the alleged mentally ill person is not the applicant, the application shall contain the reasons for the application not being made by the husband or wife and shall indicate the relationship of the applicant with the alleged mentally ill person and the circumstances under which the application is being made.
(5) No person -
(i) Who is a minor, or
(ii) Who , within fourteen days before the date of the application, has not seen the alleged mentally ill person, shall make an application under this section.
(6) Every application under sub-section (3) shall be made in the prescribed form and shall be signed and verified in the prescribed manner and shall state whether any previous application had been made for inquiry into the mental condition of the alleged mentally ill person and shall be accompanied by two medical certificates from two medical practitioners of whom one shall be a medical practitioner in the service of Government.
23. Powers and duties of police officers in respect of certain mentally ill persons ? (1) Every officer in charge of a police station -
(a) may take or cause to be taken into protection any person found wandering at large within the limits of his station whom he has reason to believe to be so mentally ill as to be incapable of taking care of himself, and
(b) shall take or cause to be taken into protection any person within the limits of his station whom he has reason to believe to be dangerous by reason of mental illness.
(2) No person taken into protection under sub-section (1) shall be detained by the police without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for taking him into such protection, or where, in the opinion of the officer taking the person into protection, such person is not capable of understanding those grounds, without his relatives or friends, if any, being informed of such grounds.
(3) Every person who is taken into protection and detained under this section shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of taking him into such protection excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place where he was taken into such protection of the Court of the Magistrate and shall not be detained beyond the said period without the authority of the Magistrate.?
6. A close scrutiny of the above provisions would be circumspect that application for a reception order may be made by the husband, wife or any other relative of the mentally ill person. The said Act also empowers the police officer to take or cause to be taken into protection any person found wandering at large within the limits of his station whom he has reason to believe to be so mentally ill as to be incapable of taking care of himself, and / or whom he has reason to believe to be dangerous by reason of mental illness.
7. In the present case on hand, it is averred that the 3rd respondent behaved violently and caused nuisance not only to his family members, but also to the public at large and frequently made hoax phone calls to Police. Therefore, this Court is of the view that allowing the 3rd respondent to roam scot free in the society is unsafe and an utmost care and protection to the 3rd respondent by way of rehabilitation is the ultimate solution in safeguarding both the rights of the public as well as the 3rd respondent. To that effect, the wife and the son of the 3rd respondent have also filed affidavits, nodding no objection to get him admitted in a hospital.
8. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to secure the 3rd respondent and have recourse to the law under the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987, by admitting him either in anyone of the Rehabilitation Centres or Hospitals providing treatment for such kind of diseases, for his betterment in life, based on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.12.2015. It is made clear that all the medical expenses have to be borne by the petitioner.
To
1. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police, S.S.Colony Police Station, S.S.Colony, Madurai.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .