Madras High Court
V.John Prabhakar vs / on 7 November, 2022
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.P.(MD)No.19567 of 2022
1. V.John Prabhakar
2. M. Berlinjose ... Petitioners
/vs./
1. The Chief Secretary to Government
Home Department
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9
2. The Director General of Police
Tamil Nadu Police
No.1, Kamarajar Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai- 4.
3. The Director General of Police
Crime Branch, CID
Guindy,
Chennai 32.
4. The Inspector of Police
Chathrapatti Police Station
Madurai District ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to direct
further / fresh / de-nova / re-investigation by some other investigation agency,
such as, third respondent based on the Petitioners' application dated 25.7.2022
by disposing the same.
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to direct further / fresh / de-nova / re- investigation by some other investigation agency, such as, third respondent based on the Petitioners' application dated 25.7.2022 and to dispose of the same within the stipulated period.
2. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the first Petitioner/John Prabakhar is the Administrative Manager of the Russ Foundation at Chatrapatti, Madurai. The Foundation was started in the year 1992. Till 2015, it flourished with many activities with the support of the Central and State Governments. In the year 2015, the Child Welfare Committee, Madurai, had to conduct election of its Members for which the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai had given intimation through the office of the learned Principal District Judge, dated 22.06.2015. The selection process of 2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 office bearers and the Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee was proposed to be convened on 25.06.2015 at 04.00 p.m., at the Principal District Court, Madurai. The learned Principal District Judge, Madurai invited the second Petitioner/Berlin Jose for the same. On that election, the present Chairperson - Vijaysaravanan was elected as the Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee. The Victim girl was admitted in the Russ foundation. She was brought along with her mother to the Russ foundation. She has also given a letter which reads as follows:
ngWeh;
eph;thfp mth;fs;> u]; gTz;Nlr\d; Foe;ijfs; ,y;yk;> njhz;lkhd;gl;b> kJiu.
kjpg;gpw;Fhpa eph;thfp mth;fSf;F> vd; fzth; tpgj;jpy; ,we;J tpl;lhh;. ehd; $yp Ntiy ghh;j;J vd; ,uz;L Foe;ijfisAk; fhg;ghw;wp tUfpNwd;. ,g;NghJ ahUila MjuTk; ,y;yhj epiyapy;> vd; kfs; XXXXX ghJfhg;ghf tsh;f;f ,aytpy;iy. ey;y fy;tp nfhLf;f ,aytpy;iy. ,jd; fhuzkhf cq;fs; N`hkpy; ghh;j;Jf; nfhs;Sk; gb kpfj; jho;ikAld; Nfl;Lf; nfhs;fpNwd;.
,g;gbf;F> Xk;/-3/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022
3. Meanwhile, there was dispute in the Child Welfare Committee between A2/Berlin Jose and the Child Welfare Committee regarding mismanagement of funds. He had sought details under the Right to Information Act as per application, dated 04.04.2019. One of the complaints is that one Alagu Raja Surya Sridhar working as Contract staff under the District Child Protection Office is threatening the staff and officials of Russ foundation and posing himself as District Child Welfare Committee and requesting the District Collector to replace Mr.Sridhar by appointing women staff to visit girls Home and interact with girl children and lady staff members. Also he had addressed the District Child Protection Officer under the Right to Information Act regarding details which were also furnished. Thereafter, there had been enmity between the Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee and the Petitioners herein. The said Sridhar used to interfere in the affairs of the Society. One day, he had challenged the Russ Foundation stating that ‘Take it from me, one day the Russ Foundation will be closed” “ vOjp itr;rpf;Nfh”. In 2019, the term completed for the Child Welfare Committee. This time, A2 was defeated. The interview was cancelled by the letter of the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai. Registration of the Russ foundation was not renewed on 2018. The second Petitioner met the officials at Secretariat and got it renewed directly. 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 When all the disputes with the Child Welfare Committee are in existence, the victim girl fell ill and she was treated in the hospital attached to the Russ foundation. Dr.Kavitha of Avvai Hospital, Anna Nagar treated the victim. Dr. Kavitha is a Specialist in Pediatric Neurology. She had diagnosed the illness of the victim girl,/inmate of the Russ foundation hostel “acute chest altered sensation with Chloroform with nest achness’ that means shivering. She was also dignosed with Meningno exlateraturs. The victim was referred to Pediatric Ward, Government Rajaji Hospital as suspected to be suffering from brain fever.
4. At the pediatric ward Dr. Divya examined the victim. She had diagnosed the victim as suffering from “Acute Meningits” (symptoms of brain fever) altered Sensorium suspected sexual abuse. She is a hosteller since nine years of age near Thondaimanpatti (co-education). Patient gives h/o being hit frequently by the care taker of the institution. Also she had recorded that hymen not intact. No external injuries over genitalis. Suggested VDRL (HIV).
5. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that wherefrom the Doctor got suspicion regarding sexual assault. Only Dr.Kavitha, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, has at the first time stated about 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 “suspected sexual abuse”. It is because Dr.Vijay Saravanan, the Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee is inimical towards the second Petitioner/Berlin Jose. He is in contact with the Doctors in Madurai, Particularly, Doctors in Government Hospital. Dr.Vijay Saravanan Psychyatrist by profession. Therefore, to wreck vengeance, he had sought the help of Dr.Divya of the Pediatric ward. Dr.Divya had signed the medical record on 17.10.2019. After five days, complaint was preferred by the mother of the victim directly implicating the Petitioners. Before registering the FIR, the caretaker of the Russ home was detained unofficially. Thereafter, on 21.102019, one day before the registration of the First Information Report, the Petitioners were taken into custody. On these days, no enquiry was conducted by the police. They only detained the Petitioners on illegal custody. On 20.10.2019, complaint was obtained from the mother of the victim.
6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the First Information Report, copy of which, was enclosed along with this petition. The mother of the victim had only stated that her daughter had informed that the Petitioners herein who are the caretakers of the Russ Foundation used to touch the victim girl and second Petitioner is alleged to have beaten her. In the statement under Section161(3) of Cr.P.C., the 6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 mother of the victim girl had improved her version as though the Petitioners herein had given sweet laced with drugs and thereby, her daughter (victim girl) suffered unconscious. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C given by the grandmother of the victim girl, copy of which, is also enclosed along with the typed set in the petition, wherein the grandmother states that the granddaughter/victim had suffered bruises in the female genital organ as though the Petitioners herein had had sexual intercourse with the victim girl. It is to be noted that the maternal grandmother of the victim girl is not a witness and she is only a hearsay witness. When she states that the granddaughter suffered injuries on the genital organs, the Certificate of Dr.Divya of Government Hospital, Pediatric Department, Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, states that there is no external injuries on the genital parts of the victim. Except the mother of the victim, grandmother of the victim and the inmates of the Russ Foundation hostel, the children of the hostel had not spoken about any case of misbehaviour or abuse of the minor children by the Petitioners herein. The confession obtained from the first Petitioner is prepared as such by the police and claimed that as he had misbehaved with the victim. The second Petitioner was forced to sign the confession statement but he refused.
7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022
7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the statement recorded from the doctor and query put to the doctors by the Investigation Officer regarding doubts:
1. Whether the victim has been subjected to sexual intercourse?
2. How many days prior to the date of treatment had the minor victim subjected to sexual abuse
3. What were the test conducted on the minor girl/victim girl
4. As per the report of the medical officer it is stated there were injuries on the genital organs of the victim girl/minor.
5. What were the causes for those injuries.
8. By way of reply Dr.Divya - Medical Officer attached to the Pediatric ward of the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai had stated that the minor girl/victim might have been subjected to intercourse. She is unable to give answer to the query how many days prior to medical examination was the minor girl subjected to sexual intercourse. Blood test, scan test, vaginal swap test were conducted on the minor victim girl. Hymen not intact is the test result which gave indication that she might have been subjected to sexual intercourse.
9.The learned Counsel for the Petitioners also invited the attention of this Court to the draft charge sheet, wherein it is stated that:
“ ,e;j tof;fpd; Gfhh;jhuh; (XXXXX) vd;gth; kJiu muR ,uh[h[p kUj;Jtkid 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 mUfpy; cs;s eap;dhh; ];tPl; filapy; gpy;NghLk; Ntiy nra;J tUfpwhh;.
Nkw;gb Gfhh;jhuUf;F rghpFkud; vd;w kfDk; (XXXXX) vd;w 10 taJ G +h;j;jpahd kfSk; cs;sdh;. Gfhh;jhuhpd; fzth; fle;j 3 Mz;LfSf;F Kd;G tpgj;jpy; ,we;Js;shh;. mjdhy; jdJ kfdhd rghpFkud; vd;gtiu J}j;Jf;Fb khtl;lk;
rpy;yhd;Fsj;jpy; cs;s Kj;Jf;fUg;gd; Nky;epiyg; gs;spapy; Nrh;;j;J 7k; tFg;G gbj;J tUfpwhh;. ,e;j tof;fpy; ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkp (XXXXX) kJiu Kj;Jg;gl;bapy;
cs;s Foe;ijfs; eyf; FOkk; %yk; kJiu khtl;lk;> M. rj;jpug;gl;b> njhz;lkhd;gl;bapy; cs;s u]; gTz;Nlrdpy; 19.07.2019k; Njjp Nrh;j;J mq;Fs;s fhh;y;rd; eh;rhp gs;spapy; jw;NghJ 5k; tFg;G gbj;J te;Js;shh;. Nkw;gb u];
gTz;Nlrdpd; fz;fhzpg;ghsuhf [hd;gpughfh; (A1) vd;gtUk;> epWtduhf ngh;ypd;N[h]; (A2) vd;gtUk; ,Ue;J te;Js;sdh;. ghjpf;fg;gl;l ,sk; rpWkp jd;
mk;khTld; Nghdpy; Ngr Ntz;Lk; vd;why; [hd;gpughfh; (A1) jq;fp ,Uf;Fk;
miwf;Fr; nrd;W Nghdpy; Ngrp te;Js;shh;. mg;NghJ [hd;gpughfh; (A1) ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkpia fhk ,r;irAld; njhl;L Ngrp te;Js;shh;. vjphp ngh;ypd;N[h]; (A2) vd;gth; miwia Rj;jkhf itf;ftpy;iy vd;W ghjpf;fg;gl;l ,sk;
rpWkpapd; gpd;Gwj;jpy; ifahy; fhk ,r;irAld; mbj;Js;shh;. mjidj; njhlh;e;J 2019k; Mz;L Mf];l; khjk; filrp thuj;jpy; ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkp (XXXXX) u];
gTd;Nlrdpy; cs;s [hd;gpughfh; (A1) jq;fpapUf;Fk; miwf;F mioj;Jr; nrd;W Nkw;gb rpWkpf;F kpl;lha; nfhLj;Js;shh;. kpl;lhia rhg;gpl;l rpWkpf;F kaf;fk;9/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 Vw;gl;Ls;sJ. mjd;gpd;dh; mq;fpUe;j [hd;gpughfh; (A1)k;> ngh;ypd;N[h];
(A2) Mfpa ,UtUk; $l;lhfr; Nrh;e;J rpWkpAld; kpf Nkhrkhd tifapy; Eioj;Jg;
ghypay; jhf;Fjy; nra;a Ntz;Lk; vd;w nghJthd cl;fUj;Jld; ,Ue;J> Nkw;gb rpWkpf;F $l;lhf kpf Nkhrkhd tifapy; Eioj;Jg; ghypay; jhf;Fjy; nra;J cs;sdh;. miu kzp Neuk; fopj;J kaf;fj;jpypUe;J vOe;j rpWkpapd; ngz; cWg;ig Nkw;gb 1 kw;Wk; 2 vjphpfs; iffshy; njhl;Lg; ghh;j;Js;sdh;. mjidj; njhlh;e;J Nkw;gb 1 kw;Wk; 2 vjphpfs; rpWkpia `h];lYf;F mDg;gp itj;Js;shh;fs;. mg;NghJ Nkw;gb rpWkpf;F jiyapYk;> tapw;wpYk;> ngz; cWg;gpYk; typ ,Ue;Js;sJ. mjidj; njhlh;e;J 13.10.2019k; Njjp ghjpf;fg;gl;l ,sk; rpWkpf;F gpwe;jehs; vd;gjhy; ,t;tof;fpd; Gfhh;jhuh; tuKbahj R+o;epiy Vw;gl;Ls;sJ. u]; gTz;Nlrdpd; epWtdh; ngh;ypd;N[h]; (A2) vd;gth; rpWkpaplk; Nghdpy; Ngrp> cdf;F vd;d thq;fp tu Ntz;Lk; vd;W Nfl;L rhf;nyl; thq;fp tu $wNt 14.10.2019k; Njjp khiy Rkhh; 6.00 kzpastpy; 2tJ vjphp jdpj;jdp Jz;Lfshf cs;s Nff;Ffis thq;fp nfhz;L te;J> gpwe;j ehs; nfhz;lhb tpl;L mq;Fs;s Foe;ijfSf;F nfhLj;Jk;> ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkpf;F xU Nff; nfhLj;J mij mth; rhg;gpl;lTld; mtUf;F jiytyp> kaf;fk; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ. rpWkpf;F khj;jpiu nfhLj;Js;sdh;. kWehs; 15.10.2019k; Njjp ghjpf;fg;gl;l rpWkpf;F the;jp> kaf;fk; Vw;glNt mtiu BGM kUj;Jtkidf;F nfhz;L nrd;W> mjd; gpd;dh; nfd;dl; kUj;Jtkid mUfpy; cs;s u]; gTz;Nlrd; N`hKf;F mioj;Jr; nrd;W mq;F ghjpf;fg;gl;l (XXXXX) Gfhh;jhuh; 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 (XXXXX) xg;gilj;Js;shh;fs;. mjidj; njhlh;e;J ghjpf;fg;gl;l ,sk; rpWkpia mz;zhefhpy; cs;s xsit kUj;Jtkidf;F nfhz;L nrd;w NghJ fha;r;ry; mjpfkhf ,Ue;jjhy; kUj;Jthpd; MNyhridg;gb kJiu muR ,uh[h[p kUj;Jtkidapy; rpfpr;irf;F Nrh;j;Jk;> gpd;G 17.10.19k; Njjp md;W thh;L vz;. 113y; itj;J rpWkpf;F ghpNrhjid nra;jjpy; rpWkpf;F ghypay; jhf;Fjy; (fw;gopg;G) ele;Js;sjhf $wpAs;sdh;. Nkw;gb 1 kw;Wk; 2 vjphpfs; ,UtUk; ghjpf;fg;gl;l ,sk; rpWkpf;F $l;lhf kpf Nkhrkhd tifapy; Eioj;Jg; ghypay; jhf;Fjy; nra;Jk;> $l;lhf kpf Nkhrkhd tifapy; ghypay; jhf;Fjy; nra;Js;sjhy; Nkw;gb 1 kw;Wk; 2 vjphpfs; gphpTfs; 376 DB ,jr> kw;Wk; 5(f), (g), (j-i), (m) r/w 6 (g), (j-(i), (m) r/w. 10 Foe;ijfis ghypay; Fw;wq;fspypUe;J ghJfhf;Fk; rl;lk; 2012-d; gb jz;bf;fj;jf;ff; Fw;wk; Ghpe;Js;shh;fs;.
10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the reported ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi .vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors dated 13.12.2012. It is a case regarding arms case which attract grave punishment. In Vinay Tyagi case having not satisfied with the investigation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had sought for interim report from the police officials of the Delhi Special Police. Here, the Petitioners suspected the role of Vijay Saravanan for implicating the Petitioners 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 through the mother of the victim girl. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the victim girl’s mother was a sex worker. Victim girl’s father died. Now, she is under the care of the brother of the husband. She herself felt that the victim girl is not safe in the house. Therefore, she brought the victim girl as inmate of the hostel run by the Russ Foundation. When the Petitioners as care taker of the Russ Foundation interviewed her and suggested her to retain her and also admit her son in this hostel. She had stated that she had put her son in hostel in Thoothukudi District and she felt that her child will be unsafe in home. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since the mother of the victim girl herself was a former sex worker, she felt unsafe with the persons with whom she had contact will misbehave with the child. Therefore, she had put her child in the hostel run by the Russ Foundation. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Russ Foundation was working under the supervision of the Central and State Government for the under previleged and the downtrodden and also with the sex workers those affected with HIV and tuberculosis. They were in the field of social work. Therefore, the Petitioners herein had contact with all these people. In the course of the same, the Petitioners suspected that the mother of the victim girl was exploited by Dr.Vijay Saravanan to wreck vengeance on the Petitioners. The second 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 Petitioner has preferred complaint against the working of the Child Welfare Committee in the act of omission and commission and the act of mismanagement of the funds from the Central and State Government which had created bad blood that the Petitioners herein to bring up the confidence of Dr.Vijay Saravanan, Psychiatrist by profession who is the Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee. Under these circumstances, the investigation is nothing but misuse of the act by the Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee through his contact in Madurai and including doctors in the Government Hospital. Only Dr.Divya had suspected the child abuse of the minor victim girl and the minor victim girl would have been subjected to sexual abuse by her mother's contacts or by the step father / uncle of the victim girl. As the victim girl's mother had stated that she is under the care of the brother of the husband. Therefore, if the hymen is found not intact, it may be due to the conduct of the brother of the husband ie., the victim girl's paternal uncle. Only as symptom of suspicion, “hymen not intact” circumstance was exploited by Dr.Vijayasaravan, an Medical Officer of Government Rajaji Hospital to see that the Russ foundation is closed as challenged by the confident of Dr.Sridhar as that he will throw out the recital earlier that “Take it from me” (vOjp itr;rpf;Nfh). Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks direction directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to direct further/fresh/de-nova/re-investigation by some 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 other investigation agency, such as, third respondent .
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the Petitiones have filed petition before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P No. 1000 of 2021 for discharge. He would further submit that after due enquiry, the learned Trial Judge had dismissed the petition, against which, the Petitioner has filed a revision before this Court in Crl.R.C(MD) No.917 of 2022. It is the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C by the victim, is mandatory. There are incriminating materials against the Petitioners herein. In spite of the same, the Petitioners have filed discharge petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under the POCSO Act, Madurai. In the very same petition, they had sought further investigation and also after due enquiry, the Special Court had dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, they have filed a revision before this Court in Crl.R.C(MD) No.917 of 2022 which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 30.09.2022. In the petition filed by the Petitioners before the trial Court, the Petitioners have prayed for :
“(i) It is a fit case for ordering further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C by this Hon'ble Court;
(ii) It is a classic case of abuse of POCSO Act providing stringent 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 punishment and abuse of powers provided to offical to safeguardthe children from abuse; and
(iii) Where there is no prima facie case, the accused could not be put in the ordeal of trial.”
12. It is the further submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that what had been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was subject to the discussion before the revision Court. Very same materials are placed before this Court by way of Writ of Mandamus seeking direction from this Court to order interim report from the police officer, so that, this Court can pass orders ordering fresh investigation or further investigation.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.C(MD) No.917 of 2022, wherein the learned Single Judge had stated that this is not a fit case. What has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner had been once again agitated before the same Court under the guise of Writ Petition. Further, it is the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that nowhere in the petition, the facts leading to filing of Crl.M.P had been stated. Petition to seek discharge was dismissed on 18.03.2022. The Petitioners herein had not stated those facts in the Writ Petition filed before this Court.15/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022
14. On considering the orders passed by the learned trial Judge as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice.G.Ilangovan) in Crl.R.C(MD) No.917 of 2022, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders in the Writ Petition as the subject matter was exhaustively discussed by the learned Trial Judge which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.R.C(MD) No.917 of 2022. If this Court passes any order in favour of the Petitioners, it would amount to negating the order already passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and passing contraditory orders on the Writ side misusing the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the subject matter is discussed above, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners stated that it has already been discussed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.R.C(MD) No.917 of 2022. The only difference is being it is Crl.R.C through the process of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas this investigation is invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Vinay Tyagi case also does not have acceptance in the light of the facts stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, wherein he had stated that the Petitioners herein filed Crl.M.P before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for offences against women including POCSO Act cases, Madurai, where the learned Sessions Judge had discussed in detail. All the points raised by the accused before the 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 trial Court were rejected which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.R.C(MD) No.917 of 2022 dated 30.09.2022. Therefore, what was agitated by the Petitioners in this petition was agitated by him which was refused by the learned Single Judge of this Court on an earlier occasion. Therefore, this is the second round of litigation under the guise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If this petition is allowed, it would amount to interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by a Co-ordinate Bench which, in turn, results in confusion in the minds of the litigants as well as the trial Judge. The same Court with different Benches granted different relief for the same issue. One Bench refused the relief and another Bench granted relief. Therefore, it is found that the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Vinay Tyagi case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is not applicable to the fact of the case. Here, the facts are different. The victim herself had given statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C before the learned Judicial Magistrate which is mandatory provision to inspire the confidence of the Investigation Officer that the alleged occurrence is true. Accordingly, the statement of the minor victim girl is attracting the provisions of POCSO Act. Then, the attempt of the Petitioners herein seeking direction from this Court by way of Writ of Mandamus directing the Chief Secretary of the State, Additional Chief Secretary (Home Department) of the State, Director 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 General of Police, CBCID to condut de-nova investigation is found unacceptable. If this Court grants order, it amounts to negating the finding of the learned Sessions Judge which was confirmed by the learend Single Judge of this Court.
15. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, from the date of taking cognizance of the offence by the Special Court under POCSO Act, the trial Court had to complete the trial within a period of one year.
16. Here the Petitioners had exhausted the remedy available to them and delayed the trial by more than a year. The trial Court is ready to proceed with the trial. At this stage, this petition has been filed. It is found to be dilatory tactics involved by the Petitioners who are facing trial as accused. At the instigation of the acused, there cannot be transfer of investigation, particularly, when the investigation has been completed. This is the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, victim can seek transfer of investigation or further investigation, but the Court exercising Constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India for transfer or re-investigation 18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 or de-nova investigation, which is against the settled proposition of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 10 SCC 753 [Romila Thapar and others -vs- Union of India and others] relying on earlier order/judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 5 SCC 79 [Narmada Bai -vs- State of Gujarat). In Romila Thapar's case cited supra in paragraphs 23 to 28 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“23. After having given our anxious consideration to the rival submission and upon perusing the pleadings and documents produced by both the sides, coupled with the fact that now four named accused have approached this Court and have asked for being transposed as writ petitioners, the following broad points may arise for our consideration:
23.1.(i) Should the Investigating Agency be changed at the behest of the named five accused?
23.2.(ii) If the answer to point (i) is in the negative, can a prayer of the same nature be entertained at the behest of the next friend of the accused or in the garb of PIL?
23.3.(iii) If the answer to question Nos. (i) and/or (ii) above, is in the affirmative, have the petitioners made out a case for the relief of appointing Special Investigating Team or directing the Court monitored investigation by an independent Investigating Agency?
23.4.(iv) Can the accused person be released merely on the basis of the perception of his next friend (writ petitioners) that he is an innocent and law abiding person?
24. Turning to the first point, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is no more res integra. In Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat (2011 5 SCC 79), in paragraph 64, this Court restated that it is trite law that the accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of Investigating Agency. Further, the accused persons cannot choose as to which Investigating Agency must investigate the offence committed by them. Paragraph 64 of this decision reads thus:19/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 “64. It is trite law that accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of an investigation agency. The accused persons cannot choose as to which investigation agency must investigate the alleged offence committed by them.”(emphasis supplied)
25. Again in Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India (2016 1 SCC
1), the Court restated that the accused had no right with reference to the manner of investigation or mode of prosecution. Paragraph 68 of this judgement reads thus:
“68. The accused has no right with reference to the manner of investigation or mode of prosecution. Similar is the law laid down by this Court in Union of India v. W.N. Chadha (1993 Supp (4) SCC 260), Mayawati v. Union of India (2012 8 SCC
106), Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat (2014 4 SCC 626), CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi (1996 11 SCC 253), Competition Commission of India v. SAIL (2010 10 SCC 744) and Janta Dal v. H.S. Choudhary.” (1991 3 SCC 756) (emphasis supplied)
26. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in E. Sivakumar v.
Union of India (2018 7 SCC 365), while dealing with the appeal preferred by the accused challenging the order of the High Court directing investigation by CBI, in paragraph 10 observed:
“10. As regards the second ground urged by the petitioner, we find that even this aspect has been duly considered in the impugned judgment. In paragraph 129 of the impugned judgment, reliance has been placed on Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat , wherein it has been held that in a writ petition seeking impartial investigation, the accused was not entitled to opportunity of hearing as a matter of course. Reliance has also been placed in Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra (2009 6 SCC 65), in particular, paragraph 11 of the reported decision wherein the Court observed that it is well settled that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation. By entrusting the investigation to CBI which, as aforesaid, was imperative in the peculiar facts of the present case, the fact that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition or for that matter, was not heard, in our 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 opinion, will be of no avail. That per se cannot be the basis to label the impugned judgment as a nullity.”
27. This Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala (2008 3 SCC 542), has enunciated that the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction cannot change the investigating officer in the midstream and appoint an investigating officer of its own choice to investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis. The Court made it amply clear that neither the accused nor the complainant or informant are entitled to choose their own Investigating Agency to investigate the crime in which they are interested. The Court then went on to clarify that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution can always issue appropriate directions at the instance of the aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by the investigating officer mala fide.
28. Be that as it may, it will be useful to advert to the exposition in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010 3 SCC 571) In paragraph 70 of the said decision, the Constitution Bench observed thus:
“70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise.
Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”
17. In the light of the above, the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Madurai, is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the case within a reasonable period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any of the accused is not co- operating with the trial and indulging in any dilatory tactics, the Trial Judge shall act as per the reported ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala reported in [(2005)AIR SCW 5560], by cancelling the bail and detain them in prison till the disposal of the case. Also the trial Judge shall not defer cross-examination on the pretext of recalling witnesses at the whims and fancies of the Petitioners/accused as per the reported decision in 2015 (1) MLJ (Crl) 288 (SC) [Vinod Kumar -vs- State of Punjab]. Witnesses are to be cross-examined on the date when the witnesses are available before the Court. The learned trial Judge shall not grant time to recall witnesses.
In the result, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
07.11.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No aav 22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 To:
1. The Chief Secretary to Government Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9
2. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police, No.1, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai- 4.
3. The Director General of Police Crime Branch, CID Guindy, Chennai 32.
4. The Inspector of Police Chathrapatti Police Station Madurai District
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.23/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD) No.19567 of 2022 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
aav W.P.(MD)No.19567 of 2022 07.11.2022 24/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis