Madras High Court
S.Indira Gandhi vs The Inspector Of Police on 18 April, 2016
Author: P.N.Prakash
Bench: P.N.Prakash
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2016 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6380 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3169 of 2016 S.Indira Gandhi W/O.BOOPATHI, CHAIRMAN, TAMILNADU CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT OBSERVATION HOME, NO.34, EB ROAD, TRICHY DIST. ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Trichy Fort, Trichy City (Crime No.20 of 2014) ... Respondent/Complainant 2.N.Prabhakaran ... Respondent/Accused PRAYER: This petition is preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2015, dated 17.11.2015, passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy, in Crime No.20 of 2014, on the file of the first respondent, dated 16.10.2014, within the time stipulated. !For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy ^For R1 : Mrs.S.Prabha Govt Advocate (Crl.Side) :O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this criminal original petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking set aside of the impugned order, dated 17.11.2015, passed in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2015, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent Police.
3. It is seen that the petitioner herein is the Chair-Person of Tamil Nadu Child Welfare Committee, Government Observation Home, Tiruchirappalli, and that she had lodged a complaint against the second respondent herein, who is the Superintendent of Child Observation Home, Trichy, alleging that he had misbehaved with the inmates of the Observation Home. Based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the first respondent Police registered a case, in Crime No.20 of 2014, under Section 20 Rule 20(w) of Juvenile Justice and Protection Act, 2000 and Sections 9(b)(d) and 11 of POCSO Act, 2012, against the second respondent herein. During the course of investigation, the respondent Police had the 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victims recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli, in the presence of the caretaker of the District Child Welfare Officer, Tiruchirappalli. In the 164 Cr.P.C., statement, the victims have clearly stated that no such alleged incident had taken place. It is further seen that there is animosity between the petitioner and the second respondent, due to which the petitioner, by misusing the official power vested with her, has made false allegations against the second respondent.
4. The first respondent Police, after completion of investigation, closed the case in Crime No.20 of 2014 as mistake of fact and filed a closure report before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli. The petitioner herein filed a protest application and the learned Sessions Judge, considering the evidences on record, accepted the closure report filed by the first respondent Police, by the impugned Order dated 17.11.2015, challenging which the petitioner is before this Court.
5. This Court carefully perused the materials on record, including the statement of the alleged victims recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., by the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy with the assistance of the District Child Welfare Officer, Trichy. All the alleged victims have denied the occurrence of the alleged incident. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the respondent police filed a closure report before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy. The anxiety of the petitioner to wreak vengeance against the 2nd respondent is manifest from the fact that she filed a protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2015 in Crime No.20 of 2014 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy by a detailed order, which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Not satisfied with that, the petitioner has now approached this Court, challenging the order dated 17.11.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy in accepting the closure report filed by the Police.
6. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner will go to any extent to abuse her official power of settling scores with persons, who are inimical to her. Therefore, it is dangerous to have a person of the petitioner's ilk to hold the post of Chair Person, Tamil Nadu Child Welfare Committee, in public interest. Therefore, this Court directs the Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department and the District Collector, Trichy to take steps to remove the petitioner from the post of Chair Person, Child Welfare Committee, Trichy and not to assign any such important public position to her in the future.
7. In the result, this criminal original petition fails and it is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the Curator, Gandhi Museum, Madurai, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Trichy Fort, Trichy City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..