Madras High Court
A.K.Velan vs The Inspector Of Police on 22 January, 2018
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.01.2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN Crl.R.C.No.1285 of 2017 A.K.Velan .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Inspector of Police, Thousand Lights Police Station, Thousand Lights, Chennai-4. 2.The Chennai City Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Chennai-4, Tamil Nadu. 3.The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police Head Office, Mylapore, Chennai 4. .. Respondents Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. against the dismissal order dated 27.06.2017 passed by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court of Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai in M.P.No.3 of 2017. For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Velan Party-in-Person For Respondents:Mr.T.Arul Additional Public Prosecutor ***** O R D E R
The petitioner, who is the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2017 on the file of the learned XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, seeking the prayer to the respondent/police to register the First Information Report based on the complaint dated 29.12.2016 for suspicious regarding the death of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Selvi.J.Jayalalitha.
2.The said complaint was dismissed by the learned XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai, on 27.06.2017, on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish his locus standi to file the said complaint. The learned Magistrate also states that the petitioner has not made out any ground for registering the F.I.R. and the present Criminal Revision has been filed before this Court, challenging the order dated 27.06.2017.
3.The petitioner Mr.A.K.Velan, who is the Practicing Advocate has filed the Criminal Revision Petition and appeared party-in-person.
4.I heard Mr.A.K.Velan, the petitioner, who is the party-in-person and Social Worker and Mr.T.Arul, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records.
5.When the Criminal Revision Petition came for admission today, the main case itself taken up for final disposal.
6.It is the case of the petitioner is that he is having legal rights and duties under the Constitution of India, General law, Special law and local law and he is one of the General public has filed the present complaint before the learned XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate Court on 05.01.2017 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., seeking direction to register the First Information Report under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. for suspicious regarding the death of Chief Minister Selvi.J.Jayalalitha and to proceed further investigation for the purpose of tracing out the real culprit.
7.The petitioner further states that the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was sudden demise under the suspicious manner, who was sitting as a Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for the past six times with full majority. Though the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was admitted on 22.09.2016 for General check-up, which the hospital comes under the jurisdiction of Thousand Light Police Station and thereafter, the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was in continuous treatment till 05.12.2016, in that result, she was dead in the suspicious manner after giving 74 days treatment in the Appollo Hospital.
8.The petitioner also states that though the former Chief Minister was taking treatment, there was no transparent medical reports from Chennai Appollo Hospitals of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Dr.J.Jayalalitha's treatment, who was in hospitalized from 22.09.2016 to 05.12.2016 in Appollo Hospital at Chennai. There was no publication regarding the said treatment of former Chief Minister by way of photos, video clipping and any other proof for her alive. Even the Hon'ble Governor of Tamil Nadu was not permitted to allow in the Appollow Hospital for knowing the Health and treatment of former Chief Minister. Those days the secrecy was maintaining in the treatment of the said former Chief Minister for 74 days. On 05.12.2016 the news were spreading through news papers, Television Media and administrators of Tamil Nadu Government stating that Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J.Jayalalitha expired today on the day itself she was buried in the cremation ground of marina beach at Chennai after completion of death ceremony in a speedy manner, but without following customs of political leaders.
9.The petitioner also states that though the former Chief Minister taking treatment for more than 74 days in the hospital, but the Doctors and Chairman of Appollo Hospitals have not revealed the facts of the treatment to the said former Chief Minister during her treatment period. More over, the bounden duties of doctors to tell the truth to their patient or their relatives even for the ordinary citizen. But the case of political leaders the doctors should follow their professional ethics in the manner of communicating an information to the Government and General public for the purpose of telling truth about the health condition of the leader, who elected that specific leader in the general election under the People Representative Act. But doctors of Appollo Hospitals have suppressed the facts and details of treatment regarding former Chief Minister. More over the administration of Appollo Hospital has violated the laws and which it framed by the Medical Council of India specially, which are in enforce.
10.The petitioner further states that the details of treatment regarding the former Chief Minister had hided by the Appollo Hospital's administration, even so many representation made by General Public under the Right to Information Act. But the said act has restricted to give reply. The Government of Tamil Nadu is keeping mum in the above said manner. A big doubt has been raised by the general public and this Court. The former Chief Minister was dead in a suspicious manner like legs were amputated and her body was in preservation, which matters had published in Dhina Malar Tamil News Paper dated 28.12.2016 in page-6 of Pondicherry issue.
11.The petitioner further states that the petitioner is having suspicious regarding the death of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Selvi.J.Jayalalitha. The petitioner also stated that on 22.09.2016, the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was admitted in the Appollo Hospital, Chennai for General Check-up. But, on 05.12.2016, the Appollo Hospital authorities has announced that the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was died. To substantiate his case, the petitioner also produced the following judgments:
(1) Pushparaj v. Maran & others reported in 2009 (3) MWN (Cr.) 53 (2) Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (Smt) and another reported in 2006 (1) SCC 627 (3) Minu Kumari and another v. State of Bihar and others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 359
12.In the said circumstances, the petitioner has created some doubts which mentioned in the complaint as follows:
i)Why was not returned Ex-CM Miss.J.Jayalalitha to home even after taking long treatment?
ii)Why was not submitted the medical reports of Appollo Hospital regarding her treatment?
iii)Why was not permitted any body to know the Health and treatment of Ex-CM Miss.J.Jayalalitha?
iv)For what purpose the dead body of Ex-CM Miss.J.Jayalalitha was buried in the speedy manner?
13.Narrating the above entire facts, the petitioner has filed the above complaint before the learned XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, seeking a direction, directing the Inspector of Police, Thousand Light Police Station, Chennai, to file F.I.R. under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and to proceed the investigation of 1st respondent for the purpose of tracing out the real culprit of the said crime.
14.After following the procedure, the learned XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, has taken the complaint on file in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2017, dated 27.06.2017 and hearing the complainant in person and on perusal of records and the complaint, the learned Magistrate was dismissed the complaint on 27.06.2017, on the ground that the petitioner does not claim to have any personal relationship with the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. He filed his petition on the fact that he is a citizen of the country from Tamil Nadu.
15.The learned Magistrate also states that since there are relatives of the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and there are the Cabinet members, and there is the political party of which she was the head, but they have not chosen to question the treatment of the manner of death. Though the medical treatment was given by several doctors in a hospital in Chennai, merely because the treatment was running for several weeks itself cannot be a suspicious circumstance. The learned Magistrate also states that the petitioner is not in a position to speak to the health condition of the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu before her admission into the hospital. Therefore, the mere contention of the petitioner that the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu only got admitted for a fever, but died in suspicious circumstances, is not an acceptable one.
16.The learned Magistrate also states that the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu also had her right to privacy regarding the treatment given to her. The petitioner has not make out any prima facie suspicious circumstances in the death of former Chief Minister. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is not a relative or member of the political party to the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
17.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing that the Government of Tamilnadu was appointed a Commission headed by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.Arumughaswamy, a retired Judge of this Hon'ble High Court and the Commission is already going on enquiry and enquired several persons and the enquiry is still on process.
18.Apart from this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also states that if the petitioner is having any grievance, he may chosen to appear before the said Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.Arumughaswamy Commission and to give his representation along with the appropriate documents. Therefore, once the Commission was appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner have no legal rights questioning about the suspicious death of the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in the Court of law. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
19.This Court perused the complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, except the complaint, there is no single document filed in support of his allegations. It is made clear that the petitioner has make out the allegations only in the air. But, being the Advocate, who is the Court officer of the Hon'ble Court must have gone through the laws of the land and filed the complaint before the appropriate Courts in a proper manner.
20.Merely because of filing the complaint without any documents for supporting the complaint cannot be entertained by any Court. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not filed any single document.
21.Admittedly, being the Advocate, the petitioner must have known that the Government himself has appointed the Commission that too headed by the Hon'ble retired Judge of this Court, have locus standi to proceed the complaint.
22.The Government of Tamil Nadu has announced that the Commission headed by the Hon'ble Retired Judge of this Court about the enquiry of the death of the former Chief Minister and if any grievance in respect of death of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu raised by the general public have every right to file petition along with the appropriate documents before the said Commission. Once the Government of Tamil Nadu has appointed the Commission for conducting enquiry, no Court have right to proceed in respect of same issue in the Court of law.
23.The petitioner, who is an Advocate and also Social Worker must have known that several cases were filed before this Court by way of filing Public Interest Litigation to go into the enquiry of the death of the Hon'ble former Chief Minister.
24.It is also brought to the notice of this Court that a Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition in W.P.No.44738 of 2016 has been filed by one Mr.P.A.Joseph, seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint a Commission headed by Three Retired Supreme Court Judge's under the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to find out the truth and to inquire into the Mysterious death of the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Ms.Dr.J.Jayalalitha as it was done in the case of Our National Leader Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose pursuant to direction of Hon'ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Rudra Jyoti Bhattacharjee and another v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1999 (CAL) 9 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 16.12.2016.
25.Since on 25.09.2017, the Government of Tamil Nadu has passed a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.817, dated 25.09.2017 passed an order for the appointment of Commission of Inquiry headed by a retired Judge of High Court for the purpose of making an independent inquiry into the demise of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Selvi.J.Jayalalitha, as per powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act LX of 1952), the Hon'ble First Division Bench of this Court on 06.10.2017, passed an order as follows:
Since the State has constituted Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, this writ petition praying for an order on the Central Government to appoint Commission of Inquiry under the aforesaid Section has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
26.Once the Commission was appointed by the Government, the petitioner is having every right to approach the said Commission in respect of his grievance and he cannot seek his grievance before the Court of law. Even on knowing about the appointment of Commission headed by the Hon'ble Retired Judge of this Court, the petitioner is proceed this case before this Court which act is totally unsatisfied by this Court. Therefore, the complaint was rightly dealt by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the same. Apart from the above reasons and the subsequent development of appointment of Hon'ble Retired Judge of this Court, as enquiry Commission, this Court does not warranting interference in the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2017, dated 27.06.2017. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
27.In the result:
(a) this Criminal Revision is dismissed by confirming the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2017, dated 27.06.2017, on the file of the learned XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai;
(b) the petitioner is giving liberty to approach the Commission headed by the Hon'ble Retired Judge of this Court to ventilate his grievance along with the appropriate documents within a period of 15 days from today i.e. 22.01.2018. No costs.
22.01.2018 Note:Issue order copy on 23.01.2018 vs Index:Yes Internet:Yes To The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs Crl.R.C.No.1285 of 2017 22.01.2018