Madras High Court
D.Jayaprakash Narayanan vs State By on 3 November, 2020
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
CRL.O.P.Nos.5887 of 2015 & 4505 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 09.10.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.11.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
CRL.O.P.No.5887 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
AND
CRL.O.P.No.4505 of 2016 and CRL.M.P.No.2394 of 2016
CRL.O.P.No.5887 of 2015
1.D.Jayaprakash Narayanan
2.D.Dasarathan .. Petitioners
Vs.
State by
1.The Superintendent of Police
Villupuram District
Villupuram
2.The Station House Officer
Villupuram West Police Station
Villupuram District
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police
CB-CID
Guindy
Chennai .. Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/12
CRL.O.P.Nos.5887 of 2015 & 4505 of 2016
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
direct the 3rd respondent to take over the further investigation of the case
in Crime No.70 of 2009 on the file of the 2nd respondent and proceed with
the same as per law within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran
For Respondents : Mr.L.Charles Premkumar
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
CRL.O.P.No.4505 of 2016
D.Jayaprakash Narayanan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State by
The Station House Officer
Villupuram West Police Station
Villupuram District
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police
CB-CID
Guindy
Chennai-32 .. Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
call for the entire records connected with the memo dated 12.10.2015
issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram in respect of
Crime No.70 of 2009 on the file of the 1st respondent-police and set aside
the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh
investigation in the matter and proceed with the same as per law and file a
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/12
CRL.O.P.Nos.5887 of 2015 & 4505 of 2016
final report within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court and further
direct the trial Court concerned to try both the cases simultaneously .
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran
For Respondents : Mr.L.Charles
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
COMMON ORDER
In view of commonality of issue involved, these Criminal Original Petitions are considered and decided by this common order.
2. The genesis of the case as projected by the petitioner has been set out in paragraph Nos.2,3,4 and 5 of the petitioner's affidavit in Crl.O.P.No.5887 of 2015, which runs as under :
“2.I state that I am a Civil Engineer. The nd 2 petitioner is doing real estate business. We belong to the Adi-dravidar community which is a Scheduled Caste.
3.I state that on 23.11.2008 at about 2.00 p.m., my brother, the 2nd petitioner herein, was returning home from Villupuram bus stand. When he was passing near Devanand Hospital, one Ramalingam, whom later came to be known as a Head Constable attached to the Villupuram Town Police Station and who was in plain clothes, stopped my brother's two-wheeler and demanded bribe from him. He had threatened my brother that if refuses to pay the bribe, he would be implicated in a false case.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3/12 CRL.O.P.Nos.5887 of 2015 & 4505 of 2016
4.I state that since my brother did not have money, he called me over his mobile and informed me about the same. He requested me to bring some money as otherwise, he would not be sent home. Immediately, I rushed to the spot. As the said Ramalingam was in mufti and further, as he did not appear to be a policeman, I called him to the nearby Police Station to resolve the situation. Enraged, he harshly pulled out my two-wheeler's key and replied me stating that he will not come to any Police Station and if I wanted, I may do so. Even then, I requested him. Then, he pulled my shirt and threatened me and stated to abuse me in filthy language. As such, I pushed him and took my key and went to my home with my brother.
5.I state that on the very same day, at about 9.00 p.m., one Kumar, Sub Inspector of the Villupuram East Police Station, the said Ramalingam and 10 other policemen came to my house and took me to the Villupuram East Police Station. There, with vengeance, they kicked me with their boots. Around 6 policemen kicked on my thighs. Though I pleaded with them saying that I did not commit any crime, the said Ramalingam and Kumar took up a wooden log and landed it brutally on my left hand. Due to the attack, my left hand little finger got fractured. In spite of my pleas, the said police personnel indiscriminately attacked me with the wooden logs on my back, legs and all over the body. Due to the same, I swooned.”
3. Per contra, the genesis of the case as projected by the police has been set out in paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit of the http://www.judis.nic.in 4/12 CRL.O.P.Nos.5887 of 2015 & 4505 of 2016 2nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.5887 of 2015 and the same is as follows :
“I submit that the 2nd petitioner, who is the brother of the 1st petitioner drove the two-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and crossed the vehicle of Head Constable Ramalingam as if dashed against the vehicle. The said Head Constable asked him why you have driven like this and also advised him that if any accident takes place there will be a danger to him. Suddenly he ridiculed the Head Constable that they will drive the vehicle only that way and abused him with filthy language. When the Head Constable Ramalingam advised him to talk with respect and informed him that he is belonging to the Police Department, immediately, he contacted the 1st petitioner through cell phone and the 1st petitioner rushed to the spot any without enquiring anybody, the 1st petitioner asked the Head Constable, why he had stopped his brother's vehicle and abused the Police Department in vulgar words and pushed him. The Head Constable asked the 1st petitioner why manhandled him without enquiring what had happened. The petitioner threatened him that he is the grandson of Loganathan, who killed the father of the MLA Pushparaj and brother-in-law of Prince Somu of DPI and the entire town is fearing about him. Suddenly, he fisted with his left hand on the right eye brow of the Head Constable and he fallen down. At the time of the fisting, the 1st petitioner sustained fracture in his left small finger. The 1st petitioner told his brother (2nd petitioner herein) that he is the police man and they will not leave us, so close his chapter and the petitioner attempted to murder him by pressing his leg on the neck of the Head Constable. The 2nd petitioner and another person, who accompanied him kicked with legs on fallen Head Constable. After seeing Tr.Sakthivel, Grade I Constable attached to the Villupuram http://www.judis.nic.in 5/12 CRL.O.P.Nos.5887 of 2015 & 4505 of 2016 West Police Station and after gathering of public they escaped from the spot. After getting the treatment the said Ramalingam lodged a complaint and the then Inspector of Police, Villupuram West Police Station registered a case in Crime No.667 of 2008 u/s 332, 294(b), 323, 307 IPC on 23.11.2008.”
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was arrested by the police in Crime No.667 of 2008 and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram, who remanded him into judicial custody on 24.11.2008.
5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the police foisted the case in Crime No.667 of 2008 and got him remanded illegally and that, the police officials abused and assaulted him by referring to his caste name. In this regard, the petitioner gave a complaint dated 08.12.2008 to the Human Rights Commission, narrating his version of the incident. It is his further case that he sent a complaint by registered post to the 2nd respondent police from the prison itself and later, he learnt that his complaint was received by the police on 25.11.2008 and they registered a case against Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police, Ramalingam, Police Constable and 20 other policemen of Villupuram Town Police Station in Crime No.70 of 2009 under Sections 147, 323, 325, 294(b) IPC and http://www.judis.nic.in 6/12 CRL.O.P.Nos.5887 of 2015 & 4505 of 2016 Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted investigation in Crime No.70 of 2009 and filed a Closure Report as Mistake of Fact on 30.07.2009 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram, after serving of RCS notice on the petitioner. Not satisfied with the investigation, these two Criminal Original Petitions have been filed with the above prayers.
6. Heard Mr.S.Sathia Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Charles Premkumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents.
7. Mr.Sathia Chandran submitted that when the accused are police officers, investigation should be done by the CB-CID or any other agency and not by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the sub division. He further contended that the Human Rights Commission had taken his complaint on file as SHRC.No.11609 of 2008 as against the police officers and after a detailed enquiry, passed an order dated 16.09.2019, holding them guilty of the allegations with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner. http://www.judis.nic.in 7/12 CRL.O.P.Nos.5887 of 2015 & 4505 of 2016
8. Per contra, Mr.L.Charles Premkumar refuted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police has done a thorough investigation on the complaint given by the petitioner and has closed the case in Crime No.70 of 2009 as Mistake of Fact and the same can be challenged only in the manner known to law, by filing a protest application before the Court concerned.
9. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.
10. The power of this Court to order a fresh investigation or re-investigation in a given case is always available, as this Court is a constitutional Court. In the case at hand, there is a serious dispute with regard to the genesis of the incident.
11. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has stated that, Ramalingam, a Head Constable, stopped the two-wheeler of his brother and demanded bribe from him; when his brother refused to comply with the demand, a quarrel ensued, which got escalated after the arrival of the petitioner in the scene. However, the petitioner in his complaint dated http://www.judis.nic.in 8/12 CRL.O.P.Nos.5887 of 2015 & 4505 of 2016 08.12.2008, given to the Human Rights Commission, which he has made part of the typed set of papers, has stated as follows :
“fle;j 23.11.2008 "hapW ez;gfy; nkw;go (tpGg;g[uk;) efuhl;rp mYtyfj;jpy; ehd; ,Ue;j nghJ vdJ jk;gp jrujdplkpUe;J vd; ifg;ngrpf;F miHg;g[ te;jJ. jpUr;rp beL";rhiyapy; Mde;j; kUj;Jtkidf;F vjphpy; tz;oapy; brd;W bfhz;oUe;jnghJ jd;Dila tz;o rhtpia xUth; gwpj;J itj;Js;sjhft[k;/ clnd rk;gt ,lj;jpw;F tUkhWk; Twpdhd;. ,jdhy; ehd; mYtyfj;jpypUe;J nkw;go ,lj;jpw;F brd;nwd;. m';F epd;W bfhz;oUe;j vd; jk;gpaplk; vd;d ele;jJ vd;W nfl;nld; mjw;F mtd; gf;fj;jpy; epd;W bfhz;;oUe;j milahsk; bjhpahj egh; xUtiuf; fhl;o tz;oia ntfkhf Xl;of; bfhz;L brd;wjhYk; ,tiuf; fle;J ehd; brd;wjhYk; vd; rhtpiag; gpo';fp itj;Jf; bfhz::L jukhl;nld; vd;fpwhh; vd;whd;. ehd; milahsk; bjhpe;j nkw;go eghplk; ahh; eP';fs; vjw;fhf rhtpiag; gpo';fp itj;jpUf;fpwPh;fs; vd;nwd.; ePahh; vd;W nfl;lhh.; ehd; nyhfehjdpd; ngud; vd;nwd;. clnd nkw;go egh; vd; rl;ilf; fhyiug; gpoj;J thlh !;nl#Df;F ehd; nghyP!;lh vd;whh;. mjw;F ehd; ehDk; c';fisg;nghy; xU muR CHpad; jhd; Kjypy; rl;ilia tpL';fs;
vd;nwd;. ,jdhy; Mj;jpug;gl;l nkw;go egh; vd; ,lJ ifia KWf;fp vd;id gf;fj;jpy; ,Ue;j kpd;fk;gj;jpy; ,Gj;J nkhjpdhh;. gpd;dh; mtuJ ifg;ngrp \yk; ahUf;nfh bjhlh;g[ bfhz;L ngrpdhh;. vd; jk;gpapd; tz;o rhtpiaa[k; nkw;go egh; bfhLj;Jtpl;lhh;;. EhDk; efuhl;rpf;F te;J tpl;nld;” In this complaint, there is absolutely no reference to the allegation that http://www.judis.nic.in 9/12 CRL.O.P.Nos.5887 of 2015 & 4505 of 2016 Ramalingam had stopped the two-wheeler of the petitioner's brother and had demanded bribe. On the contrary, it is stated in the complaint dated 08.12.2008, that when the petitioner went to the scene at the behest of his brother, he was told by his brother that he (brother) had overtaken the two-wheeler of Ramalingam and aggrieved by that, Ramalingam intercepted him and took away the key of the two-wheeler. Admittedly, Ramalingam was in mufti and not in uniform. It is the case of the police that the petitioner's brother had driven the vehicle so rashly, grazed the two-wheeler of Ramalingam and when Ramalingam questioned him, he started threatening him by saying that he is the grandson of Loganathan and brother-in-law of Prince Somu of DPI etc. It is also the case of the police that after the investigation was completed, the investigation papers in Crime No.70 of 2009 were placed before the Committee, comprising the District Collector and a person belonging to the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe community and they approved the findings of the police.
12. The conflicting stand taken by the petitioner about the genesis of the incident, does create a reasonable doubt in the mind of this Court on the veracity of the petitioner's assertion. When the foundation is so shaky on facts, this is not a fit case to order either re-investigation or http://www.judis.nic.in 10/12 CRL.O.P.Nos.5887 of 2015 & 4505 of 2016 transfer of investigation as prayed for by the petitioner. As regards the findings of the Human Rights Commission, the same is not binding on this Court inasmuch as, the findings are open to challenge by the respondents therein in the Court of law. The respondents in the proceedings before the Human Rights Commission are not parties to these Criminal Original Petitions and therefore, this Court cannot make any reference behind their backs on the findings of the Human Rights Commission.
In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed as being devoid of merits. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a protest application before the Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such protest application being filed, the same shall be proceeded in accordance with law.
03.11.2020 gya http://www.judis.nic.in 11/12 CRL.O.P.Nos.5887 of 2015 & 4505 of 2016 P.N.PRAKASH, J.
gya To
1.The Superintendent of Police Villupuram District Villupuram
2.The Station House Officer Villupuram West Police Station Villupuram District
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police CB-CID, Guindy Chennai
4.The Public Prosecutor Pre-Delivery Common Order in High Court, Madras CRL.O.P.No.5887 of 2015 AND CRL.O.P.No.4505 of 2016 03.11.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 12/12