Madras High Court
K.Janarthan vs Mrs.Vimala on 2 July, 2014
Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On: 15.06.2023
Delivered On: 28.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022
in
Crl.A.No.1277 of 2014
K.Janarthan ... Petitioner / 3rd Party
Vs.
Mrs.Vimala,
Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station (Thilagar Thidal)PS,
Madurai City. ... Contemnor
PRAYER : Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt
of Court Act, to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnor and
punish her for willfully disobeying the order passed in Hon'ble Apex
Court in Crl. Appeal No.1277 of 2014 on 02.07.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Prabhakaran
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022
For Contemnor : Mr.P.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor and
Mr.P.Veerenthiran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
***** [Order of the Court was delivered by L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.] “ngz;ik mwpTaug; gPNlhq;Fk; ngz;ikjhd;
xz;ikAw Xq;Fk; cyF”
- ghujpahu;
Prelude:
When the State of Tamil Nadu is celebrating the State Police Women's Wing’s Golden Jubilee in this year of 2023, it is an irony that a contempt case has been initiated against the Inspector of Police of the All Women Police Station at Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai city before this Court. Since 1973, when the first batch of the Women’s Wing of Tamil Nadu State Police comprising one Sub Inspector and 20 other 2/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 personnel were inducted into the Tamil Nadu Police Force, for the past more than 30 years the State Police's Women’s Wing has come a long way. The novel idea of “All Women Police Station” was first introduced in this State in the year 1992 by the then Chief Minister with the greatest vision of commencing a full fledged mission to look into the nuances of the safety and security of women by the women themselves in the State. The first of its kind was established in the Thousand Lights area of Madras City. Thereafter, this experiment was extended to all the Sub Divisional Headquarters and today this State can boast of having a total number of 222 All Women Police Stations and a total female strength of 35,359 Women Police Personnel across the State.
2. Gamut of controversy:
2.1. The petitioner in this contempt petition is one K.Janarthan, who has filed the same against Mrs.Vimala, the Inspector of Police, All Woman Police Station, Thilagar Tidal Police Station, Madurai City, for committing Contempt of Court by disobeying the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Crl. Appeal No.1277 of 2014 dated 02.07.2014, 3/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another [2015 (1) LW (Crl.) 318]. The petitioner herein is the husband of Varsha, who preferred a complaint on 23.06.2022 to the All Women Police Station, Thilagar Tidal alleging that the contempt petitioner and his parents have indulged in heinous domestic violence, dowry demand and abuse against her, thereby committing an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 417, 420, 506(1) IPC and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, which prompted the contemnor police to register a case in Crime No.32 of 2022 on the same day. Following which, on 24.06.2022, the contemnor police with a team of police persons, served notice of appearance under Section 41 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the petitioner and his parents and without waiting for them to co-operate, dragged the petitioner and his parents to the police station and thereafter without conducting proper preliminary enquiry following the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another [2015 (1) LW (Crl.) 318] and Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2014 (2) SCC 1] remanded the contempt petitioner to judicial custody. Such an 4/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 arrest has resulted in the contempt petitioner filing this petition against Mrs.Vimala, the Inspector of Police, Thilagar Tidal Police Station at Madurai city. This Court also took cognizance of the said contempt petition and ordered notice on 20.10.2022.
2.2. That apart, this Court on 18.04.2023, passed an order, directing the Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai, to file an affidavit, disclosing the details of compliance with the directions issued in paragraph No.13 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another [2015 (1) LW (Crl.) 318].
2.3. On receipt of the same, the Director General of Police has filed an affidavit in compliance to the order made by this Court, elaborating that a circular memorandum, dated 20.08.2014, has been circulated to all the Commissioners of Police in cities and the Superintendents of Police, including special units, marking copies to 5/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 Director General of Police (Intelligence), Director General of Police's, Inspector General of Police's and all range of Deputy Inspector General of Police as below:
“The directions are:-
(i) Police Officers should not arrest the accused automatically when a case is registered for an offence for which the maximum punishment provided is imprisonment for seven years or less. They must satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down in Section 41 Cr.P.C.
(ii) All Police Officers should be provided with a check list containing specified sub clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.
(iii) Police Officers shall forward the check list duly filled and furnishing the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding / producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
(iv) The decision not to arrest an accused should be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case recording the reasons in writing and this may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;6/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022
(v) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41 A Cr.P.C should be served on the accused within 2 weeks from the date of institution of the case, which is extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons recorded in writing;
(vi) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall, apart from rendering the Police Officers concerned liable for departmental action make them liable to be punished for Contempt of Court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
3. In accordance with these instructions, a check list has been compiled and enclosed. This should be filled up by the officer making arrest in all cases where the punishment imprisonment for seven years or less.
4. The filled up check list should be enclosed with the Remand Report and submitted to the Court.
5. The Commissioners of Police / Superintendents of Police will communicate this circular to all the Subordinate Officers under their control for observing these directions. It should also be ensured that the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are strictly followed and any failure will render them liable to departmental action as well as 7/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 Contempt of Court proceedings in jurisdictional High Court.” 2.4. In the mean while, the contemnor police has filed a counter affidavit denying each and every allegation put forth by the contempt petitioner against her by categorically submitting that it is not correct that she had arrested the petitioner mechanically without following the first respondent’s circular dated 25.02.2021, issued in compliance with the Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another [2015 (1) LW (Crl.) 318]. Though she has denied all the allegations put forth by the contempt petitioner in her counter affidavit, she has tendered her unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to this Court by the submission of her counter affidavit denying the allegation that she has not followed the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another [2015 (1) LW (Crl.) 318].
2.5. In this background, the gamut of controversy is as to: 8/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022
(i) Whether the contemnor police has committed contempt of Court at all by disobeying the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another [2015 (1) LW (Crl.) 318]?
(ii) Whether this Court shall have and exercise contempt jurisdiction in respect of Contempts of Court superior to it?
3. Applicable provisions of law and relevant citations in the context of this case:
3.1. The Central Government taking note of the huge statistics of arrest done mechanically by the various prosecution agencies across the country has incorporated Section 41A in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with effect from 01.11.2010 as follows:
“41A. Notice of appearance before police officer.— (1) [The police officer shall], in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion 9/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.
(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.
(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.
[(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.” 3.2. After this amendment, the newly introduced Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has made it mandatory that there shall not be any mechanical arrest and remand for offences punishable up to seven years imprisonment and fine. In a similar issue dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 10/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 and Another [2015 (1) LW (Crl.) 318], the relevant portion of the judgment of which is extracted as follows:
“7. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the law makers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive. 3.3. In furtherance to the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph No.13 of the said judgment has given several categorical directions as follows:
11/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 “13. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:
(1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Code of Criminal Procedure;
(2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)
(b)(ii);
(3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
(4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;
(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;12/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 (6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
(8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.” 3.4. Article 141 of the Constitution of India has mandated that the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India and Article 144 of the Constitution of India makes it clear that all authorities, Civil and Judicial in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is needless to say that the Tamil Nadu Police too should act in aid of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and that the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgements of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of 13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 Bihar and Another [2015 (1) LW (Crl.) 318] and Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2014 (2) SCC 1] are certainly binding on them.
4. Discussions and findings:
4.1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contempt petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the contemnor police at length. While the learned Senior Counsel for the contempt petitioner pressed to proceed with contempt proceedings against Mrs.Vimala, the learned Additional Advocate General sought the mercy of this Court, citing her unconditional apology.
4.2. Now precisely coming to the context of this case, the contempt petitioner has alleged that the contemnor police in a matrimonial case has proceeded to cause a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and compelled him along with his parents to appear before the jurisdictional All Women Police Station, after which he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody without any 14/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 preliminary enquiry as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari's case and Arnesh Kumar's case. The contemnor police, on the other hand in her counter affidavit elaborating that she hasn’t flouted the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in any way also tendered an unconditional apology.
4.3. A perusal of the materials available on record would throw more light on the facts and circumstances of this case. Having served with a summon under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the contempt petitioner, the contemnor police has required the petitioner and his parents to appear before the jurisdictional All Women Police Station. On their appearance before the jurisdictional police, the contemnor police after a brief enquiry with the accused persons, the de-
facto complainant and her parents, in a lightning speed arrested the contempt petitioner at 10:15 AM on 24.06.2022. In the mean while the statement of the de-facto complainant and her parents under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also recorded by the contemnor police. Thereafter, in compliance to the various guidelines of 15/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 the Hon'ble Apex Court with respect to arrest of accused in matrimonial cases, specific checklist as specified under Section 41 (1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared along with the reasons which necessitated the arrest, after which the contempt petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. This exercise was done by-passing the specific direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case mandating the investigating officer to serve a notice of appearance in terms of Section 41 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District, only within two weeks from the date of institution of the case. It is pertinent to mention here that on receiving a complaint from the de-facto complainant on 23.06.2022, the contemnor police had swiftly registered an FIR on the same day and while exercising her duties in discharge of conducting a preliminary enquiry on summoning the accused persons under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure, arrested the contempt petitioner on 24.06.2022 and remanded him to judicial custody.
16/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 4.4. Be that as it may, All Women Police Stations are groomed in this State in the year 1992 with a primordial intention of undoing the in- differences creeping in matrimonial disputes by strengthening the family system of this country, by acting as a shield to the victims of domestic violence and at the same time being a watchdog against the violence and cruelty inflicted on women, nailing the culprits with the due course of justice. Thus a balancing task is expected from the officers of the All Women Police Stations in ensuring gender sensitisation of the Society, thereby making the All Women Police Stations as reformatory institution.
4.5. But in reality, today as lamented by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar, in Tamil Nadu, All Women Police Stations are reduced to stations of corruption and many times the despicable attitude of arrest first, and then proceed with the rest harassing either parties in matrimonial disputes depending on the money, muscle and power of the approaching parties is at alarming rise. It is disappointing to observe that an institution which has been introduced with great 17/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 expectation to contribute towards the comity of the society has reduced itself into shameless Kangaroo Courts.
4.6. In Tamil Nadu, though each and every All Women Police Station is mandated by the various circulars of the Government of the State to conduct family counselling, gender sensitisation and women empowerment programmes, none of the family counselling units attached to the All Women Police Stations are functional today. Though All Women Police Stations are equipped with facilities to conduct mobile counselling programmes, nothing sees the light of the day. The officers, who are bound to sensitise this Society, themselves act without gender sensitisation leaning towards the mighty parties approaching them for justice.
4.7. Here in this case, the contemnor police has acted recklessly by arresting the contempt petitioner conducting a preliminary enquiry in a namby pamby style. It is ridiculous to understand that the jurisdictional Magistrate too authorised the detention of the contempt petitioner 18/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 casually, when he was produced at 06:22 PM on 24.06.2022, observing that the grounds of arrest, checklist and other records are satisfactory. However the contemnor police has tendered her unconditional apologies in her counter affidavit at the earliest possible juncture during the conduct of this case before this Court.
4.8. A Four-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mulkh Raj Vs. State of Punjab [(1972) 3 SCC 839] made the following observations which would throw considerable light on the question before us:
“9. Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace apology is shorn of penitence. If apology is offered at a time when the contemnor finds that the Court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward...........” 19/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 4.9. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Bal Kishan Giri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [MANU/SC/0514/2014] has observed in paragraph No.15 as follows:
“15. An apology for criminal contempt of court must be offered at the earliest since a belated apology hardly shows the "contrition which is the essence of the purging of contempt". Of course, an apology must be offered and that too clearly and at the earliest opportunity. However, even if the apology is not belated but the court finds it to be without real contrition and remorse, and finds that it was merely tendered as a weapon of defence, the Court may refuse to accept it. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward.” 4.10. But in this case, we are of the considered view that, though the contemnor police has acted hastily, once this Court issued notice on her, without any delay, voluntarily and spontaneously an unconditional apology was tendered by her in her counter affidavit filed at the earliest point of time. Adding to her contrition on her appearance before this 20/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 Court during the hearing of this case, her demeanour with moist eyes and humility grabbed attention.
4.11. Though we are not inclined to uphold the hasty arrest of the contempt petitioner by the contemnor police in a matrimonial case, who was summoned to the jurisdictional All Women Police Station under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are also shell-
shocked by the gravity of dowry demand, harassment and cruelty meted out to the de-facto complainant in Crime No.32 of 2022 dated 23.06.2022, All Women Police Station-Thilagar Tidal. Since the investigation of the said crime is not yet over, we refrain ourselves from going into the pros and cons of the said FIR. However, the unconditional apology tendered by Mrs.Vimala in her affidavit would purge her from contempt.
4.12. Article 215 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to punish for its contempt. The provision in Article 215 is extracted as follows:
21/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 “Article 215 – High Courts to be Courts of record:
Every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.” 4.13. Similarly, the provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 empowers the High Court to punish for its own contempt or the contempt of the Court's Subordinate to it and the same reads as follows:
“10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts.—Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself:
Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
11. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction.—A High Court shall 22/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 have jurisdiction to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits.” 4.14. A discreet reading of Article 215 of the Constitution of India in consonance with Sections 10 and 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would make it clear that these provisions would thwart the High Court from initiating contempt proceedings for the contempt of its superior Court like the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Thus as a Court of record, the High Court is attributed only with the power to punish for its contempt and the contempt of Courts Subordinate to it and not the Court which is superior to it. This has been dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vitusah Oberoi and Others Vs. Court of its own motion reported in [MANU/SC/0004/2017], the relevant portion of which is extracted as follows:
“11. The power to punish for contempt vested in a Court of Record under Article 215 does not, however, extend to punishing for the contempt of a superior court. Such a 23/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 power has never been recognised as an attribute of a court of record nor has the same been specifically conferred upon the High Courts under Article 215. A priori if the power to punish under Article 215 is limited to the contempt of the High Court or courts subordinate to the High Court as appears to us to be the position, there was no way the High Court could justify invoking that power to punish for the contempt of a superior court. That is particularly so when the superior court's power to punish for its contempt has been in no uncertain terms recognised by Article 129 of the Constitution. The availability of the power under Article 129 and its plenitude is yet another reason why Article 215 could never have been intended to empower the High Courts to punish for the contempt of the Supreme Court............” 4.15. Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, along with explanation is extracted as follows:
“12. Punishment for contempt of court. - (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or 24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.
Explanation. - An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.”
5. Conclusion:
5.1. In such circumstances, we are duty bound to extract point No.vii of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court with respect to matrimonial disputes / family disputes, in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in MANU/SC/1166/2013, the relevant portion of which is extracted as follows:
“(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks time is provided. The fact of 25/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.” 5.2. When Article 144 of the Constitution of India requires all authorities, Civil and Judicial in the territory of India to act in aid of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, we express our displeasure about the unethical arrest of the contempt petitioner by the contemnor police, exhibiting police arrogance to the extent of violating the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari case. Hence, we strictly warn the contemnor police not to repeat such abominable conduct in the discharge of her duties as a police officer any further. In addition to that in an effort to make her realise of her duties and to sensitize her we are inclined to direct the contemnor police as follows:
1.The contemnor police is directed to equip the All Women Police Station, Thilagar Tidal, Madurai with a special cell for women for the purpose of ventilating the grievances of adolescent and young women facing harassment in the Society.26/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022
2.The contemnor police is directed to equip the All Women Police Station, Thilagar Thidal, Madurai with a child friendly corner, a room to interrogate juvenile suspects.
3.She is further directed to ensure to revive the family counselling unit in her station with a qualified family counsellor, one Social Worker, one female lawyer, a doctor and a female psychologist.
4.She is directed to resume the mobile counselling unit of her police station and further directed to conduct women empowerment camps in her jurisdiction on every weekends sensitising the various sections of the Society, maintaining a record of the same.
5.She is directed to conduct family counselling in the family counselling unit of her station in all the matrimonial disputes arising there at in each and every case and maintain a register in this regard.
5.3. In view of the explanation to Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts act, 1971 and the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the 27/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022 case of Vitusah Oberoi and Others Vs. Court of its own motion reported in [MANU/SC/0004/2017], with the above observation, we are inclined to close this contempt petition by strictly warning the contemnor police to watch her behavior in future. This contempt petition stands closed with a direction to the Director General of Police to implement the above directions in all the 222 All Women Police Stations across the State of Tamil Nadu. Such an exercise shall be carried out across the State by the Department of Home, State of Tamil Nadu, as a part of the Golden Jubilee celebrations of the State Police's Women’s Wing which is going on in this year of 2023. We are duty bound to remind the Department of Home, State of Tamil Nadu that in the year 1992 when the first phase of establishing All Women Police Station was geared up, each and every All Women Police Station across the State was initially launched with these facilities, later which these stations were reduced to shambles and units of corruption. Precisely our directions to the Department of Home is intended only to fine tune an already existing system to its original alacrity.
28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022
6. In the result, this contempt petition stands closed.
7. Post this case on 27.07.2023 for reporting compliance.
(R.S.M.J.,) (L.V.G.J.,)
28.06.2023
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
BTR
29/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
BTR
Order made in
Cont. P(MD)No.1412 of 2022
in
Crl.A.No.1277 of 2014
28.06.2023
30/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis