Madras High Court
Raja Manickam vs ) The Home Secretary on 22 July, 2014
Bench: S.Manikumar, V.S.Ravi
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.07.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD)No.804 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 Raja Manickam ... Petitioner Vs. 1) The Home Secretary, State of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2) The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai. 3) The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. 4) The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. 5) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangudi Range, Pudukottai District. 6) The Inspector of Police, Malaiyoor Police Station, Pudukottai District. 7) Thiru.Durai Samy 8) Thiru.Kumar ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents to produce the person and body of the detenu namely, Thavamani wife of Rasu aged about 45 years before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty. !For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.Mayil Vahana Rajendran Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR. J.) Petitioner is the brother of the alleged detenue Thavamani w/o Rasu aged 45 years. He belongs to a down-trodden community. As per the supporting affidavit, the alleged detenue's elder son Tamil Bharathi is a JCB vehicle driver and married one Selvi, daughter of the 7th respondent, who belonged to another community. 8th respondent is stated to be the brother of Selvi.
2. As per the supporting affidavit, on 06.07.2014 about 10.00 A.M, 8th respondent came to the detenue's house with 20 persons in a Tata Sumo Car and enquired about Tamil Bharathi, son of the detenue, who has been missing along with Selvi. At that time, the alleged detenue's husband and another son Tamil Selvan and her daughter Thamarai Selvi were present. 8th respondent and his men compelled the detenue to board the Tata Sumo Car. When she refused, she was brutally attacked. She was taken to various places and threatened to hand over the detenue's son Tamil Bharathi and Selvi. They gave life threat to the detenue and others. According to the petitioner, respondents 7 and 8 and their men are in search of the detenue's son and Selvi, with dangerous weapons, to terminate their lives and prove their caste superiority.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that being aggrieved by the unlawful acts, the detenue made a representation dated 11.07.2014 the Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, respondents 3 and 5 respectively, and sought for police protection. When the matter stood thus, on 13.07.2014, morning, the 8th respondent and their men, forcibly took the alleged detenue in illegal custody and that she has been detained.
4. In the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has cited several instances of killing in Tamil Nadu, when the parties belonged to different communities. Lastly, he has submitted that though a representation dated 14.07.2014 was made to the official respondents, no action was taken against the respondents 7 and 8, and in the abovesaid circumstances, the present Writ of Habeas Corpus has been sought for.
5. On 15.07.2014, this Court has passed the following order:-
Alleging illegal detention of the petitioner's sister Thavamani, aged about 45 years, writ of habeas corpus is sought for.
2.Complaint dated 14.07.2014 has been sent by the petitioner to the Inspector of Police, Malaiyoor Police Station, Pudukkottai District and to various other higher authorities, apprehending danger.
3.On instructions, Mr.C.Mayilvahanarajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the said complaint dated 14.07.2014 has not been received by the Inspector of Police, Malaiyoor Police Station. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is directed to furnish a copy of the complaint to the investigating officer and instruct to enquire into the details if necessary, afford necessary protection. The investigating officer is directed to handle the issue having regard to the averments made in the supporting affidavit and contents of the complaint.
Post on 18.07.2014.
6. On 18.07.2014, when the matter came up for hearing, this Court has passed the following order:-
On instructions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the detenue's son had eloped with one Selvi and the detenue is now admitted in Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and a statement has been recorded to the effect that she was physically assaulted on 12.07.2014 by Sakthi, Rajendran and Selvaraj. Based on her statement, a case in Crime No.55/2014 has been registered. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the father of Selvi had filed a complaint and a case has been registered on the file of Malaiyoor Police Station in Crime No.181/2014 and in order to avoid any complaint being filed against the present writ petitioner or a defence to another HCP to be filed by the father of Selvi, the present HCP has been filed.
Complaint sent to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District and the Special Cell, Honourable Chief Minister, have been perused by Mr.R.Alagumani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and he submitted that in the complaint dated 15.07.2014 addressed to the Sub Inspector of Police, Thavamani has clearly stated about abduction and assault. He requested time to get proper instructions on the above.
Post of 21.07.2014.
7. As directed, the Habeas Corpus Petition has been listed today. On further instructions and by producing a photocopy of the complaint dated 15.07.2014 made by the alleged detenue Thavamani to the Special Cell of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, State of Tamil Nadu, Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai and Sub Inspector of Police, Malaiyoor, and the FIR registered in Crime No.55/2014 dated 16.07.2014 and inviting the attention of this Court to paragraph 8 of the supporting affidavit dated 14.07.2014, Mr.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the basis of the statement recorded in the hospital, from the detenue, the alleged occurrence of physical assault was on 10.07.2014, whereas, in the petition addressed to the abovesaid authorities, the alleged detenue has stated that she was taken in a Tata Sumo Car on 12.07.2014 Sunday at 10.00 A.M by Shakthi, son of Thangarasu, Rajendran and Kamaraj and others, and was beaten.
8. Inviting the attention of this Court to paragraph 9 of the supporting affidavit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that in the affidavit, the date of occurrence of taking the detenue forcibly, from her house was on 13.07.2014. He further added that on the basis of the statement given by the alleged detenue, a criminal case has been registered in Crime No.55/2014 on the file of Malaiyoor Police Station, against three persons namely, Selvam, Shakthi and Rajendran, who are now absconding. Selvi's mother has also lodged a complaint for the missing of "Selvi" and that a case in Crime No.181/2014 has been registered on the file of Kallal Police Station on 05.07.2014 under the caption 'Woman Missing.
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that as per the entry in the Accident Register dated 15.07.2014, it is the case of the alleged detenue that a known male and two unknown persons have physically assaulted her, with Hands and Cheppal. Doctors have recorded chest and backpain. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, son of the detenue and Selvi are missing and that investigation indicates that the petitioner should be aware of their whereabouts. There is every possibility of the petitioner and the detenue being implicated in Crime No.181/2014, if the investigation reveals their role in hiding Tamil Bharathi, son of the alleged detenue and Selvi, who are missing. According to him, in order to avoid any penal action against them, the present Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed alleging detention and for the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
10. In response to the contentions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Alagumani, learned counsel for the petitioner denied the contentions. On the contra, reiterating that the detenue belongs to a down- trodden community, being minority in the village, and referring to the incidents stated in the supporting affidavit, submitted that the apprehension to the life of the detenue is genuine, and therefore prayed for police protection.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
11. Alleged detenue Thavamani is present. When we enquired, she admitted that her son Tamil Bharathi and Selvi, daughter of the 7th respondent are missing. She also stated that she was assaulted. Complaint dated 11.07.2014, stated to have been sent by the alleged detenue to the Special Cell of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Chennai, reads that on 06.07.2014, 8th respondent and others took her in a Tata Sumo Car to find out the Selvi, sister of the 8th respondent. The relevant portion in the complaint is as follows:-
"fle;j 6.7.2014 md;W fhiy 10 kzpastpy; bry;tapd; mz;zd; Kfthp gps;isahh;Bfhtpy; ehftay; fy;yy; jhY]fh rptfA;if khtl;lk; vd;w Kfthpapy; \nUe;J Rkhh; nUgJ egh;fs; vd;id tPl;oy; te;J kpul;o lhlh Rbkhtpy; Vw;wp cd; kfd; vA;Bf nUf;fpwhd;? vd;W Bfl;L kpul;odhh;fs;. Ehd; Vw kWf;fBt, tYf;fl;lhakhf lhlh Rbkht[f;Fs; Vw;wp fe;jh;tf;Bfhl;ilf;F bfhz;L brd;W bts;isKdpad; BfhtpYf;F mUfhikapy; itj;J cdJ cwtpdh;fs; nUf;Fk; nlbky;yhk; fhz;gpj;J cd; kfid bfhz;Lte;J xg;gilj;J tpL. mtid bfhiybra;J tpl;L ehA;fs; CUf;Fr; bry;fpBwhk; vd;W kpul;odhh;fs;.
12. She has apprehended threat to her family, Tamil Bharathi and Selvi. Complaint dated 11.07.2014 does not indicate any detention. According to the complainant, there was a life threat. Rajamanikam, petitioner herein, is stated to have lodged a complaint dated 14.07.2014 to the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Chennai, the Director General of Police, Chennai, the Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District, the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangudi Circle, Pudukkottai District and the Inspector of Police, Malaiyoor Police Station, Pudukkottai District. In this complaint also, the petitioner has stated that the 8th respondent and others took the detenue in a Tata Sumo Car to Kantharva Kottai and near Vellai Muniyan Temple, 8th respondent threatened the detenue, to hand over Tamil Bharathi before Sunday, failing which, he would kill both the missing persons. In the complaint dated 14.07.2014, the petitioner has alleged that on 13.07.2014, the 8th respondent and others physically assaulted the detenue and took her, in search of the missing persons. In his complaint, he has sought for action and police protection to the family members of the alleged detenue and Selvi.
13. While the abovesaid complaints were pending, the alleged detenue seemed to have reported to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur, on 15.10.2014 and complained of physical assault about two days earlier (i.e) on 13.07.2014 at 12.00 P.M by a known male person and two unknown persons, with hands and cheppals. Whereas in the FIR registered in Crime No.55/2014 under Sections 294(b), 323, 355, 506(i) IPC, the date of occurrence is 10.07.2014. The place of occurrence remains the same (i.e) near Om Sakthi Temple. As per the entry in FIR, Crime No.55/2014 has been registered on the basis of the statement of the alleged detenue obtained from the hospital. Names of three persons namely, Selvam, Shakthi and Rajendran are mentioned in the FIR. On the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that three different dates have been mentioned in the FIR(10.07.2014), petition of the alleged detenue dated 15.07.2014(12.07.2014) and the complaint dated 14.07.2014(13.07.2014) of the brother of the alleged detenue, petitioner herein, it is for the investigating officer to ascertain the correct facts.
14. The prayer sought for in the present Habeas Corpus Petition is as follows:-
Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the person and body of the detenu namely, Thavamani wife of Rasu aged about 45 years before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty.
15. Though Mr.Alagumani, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from 06.07.2014, respondents 7 and 8 have allegedly detained Thavamani, the said contention is not substantiated. Even the alleged detenue and her brother, petitioner herein, have only alleged that on 06.07.2014, 8th respondent and others came to their village and threatened the detenue to furnish the details of the missing persons and produce Tamil Bharathi, failing which, it would end in dire consequences. Both the alleged detenue and the petitioner have categorically stated that after threatening the detenue, the 8th respondent and others left the place. Even in the first complaint dated 11.07.2014 said to have been made by Thavamani, the alleged detenue, to the Special Cell of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Chennai, there is absolutely no allegation of detention. The fact remains that the alleged detenue and respondents 7 and 8 belong to two different communities. Even in the complaint dated 11.07.2014, of the alleged detenue and the subsequent complaint dated 14.07.2014 of the petitioner addressed to various authorities, stated supra, protection has been sought for, to the missing persons, and the family members of the detenue. Difference in the communities between the parties, social status of the detenue, coupled with the lesser population in the village, the members of the community to which the detenue belongs, and the alleged incident of physical assault, have given rise to the apprehension of life threat
16. Except the above, upon going through the materials on record, this Court is not able to deduce that there was any illegal detention by respondents 7 and 8 from 06.07.2014, as alleged. The aspect as to whether the alleged detenue was taken in Tata Sumo Car, beaten up which resulted in treatment in the hospital, is a matter for investigation and at this juncture, We refrain ourselves from making any observation in this regard.
But the fact remains that the parties belonged to different communities. An occurrence is said to have been reported to the police, which culminated into registration of a case in Crime No.55/2014 on the file of Malaiyoor Police Station against three persons, stated supra, who are stated to be absconding. Mother of Selvi has lodged a complaint to Kallal Police Station, which has been registered in Crime No.181/2014 under the caption Woman Missing.
17. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, if the investigation throws any light, the petitioner and the alleged detenue may even be implicated in Crime No.181/2014. In the abovesaid circumstances, the possibility of the aggrieved parties, namely, those who have been accused in Crime No.55/2014 or their relatives or friends being aggrieved over the action of the alleged detenue, and their assumption that she and her brother, the petitioner herein are not revealing the details of the missing persons and due to the above, committing any acts punishable in law, cannot be ruled out. The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the present Habeas Corpus Petition and the Miscellaneous Petition for police protection for the missing persons as well as to the family members of the detenue, is an attempt to protect themselves from penal action, cannot be accepted in toto, except to the extent that for the reasons stated supra, we have already observed that the case of detention is not substantiated. As per the statement of the investigating officer, who is present in the Court, no untoward incident has occurred, since the registration of the crime.
18. In the case on hand, parties belong to different communities. Apprehension to life has been categorically expressed. In the above background, having regard to the socio economic conditions, prevailing in various parts of the State and when it is the normal expectation of the kith and kin of a missing girl or woman to be more agitated, in contrast to a missing man, and taking judicial notice of the inter-caste problems, we only deem it fit to direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, and the Inspector of Police, Malaiyoor Police Station, Pudukkottai, respondents 5 and 6 respectively, to monitor the Criminal Cases, in Crime No.55/2014 on the file of Malaiyoor Police Station and Crime No.181/2014 on the file of Kallal Police Station, respectively, collect materials to ascertain the day-to-day events in the subject village and nearby places, where the petitioner and the respondents 7 and 8 reside, and arrive at a proper decision, on the aspect of providing adequate police in the local area, and also see that no untoward event occurs. Even an accused is entitled to protection, if there is a threat to life and property. The respondents 5 and 6 are directed to closely monitor the criminal cases and take a decision on the basis of the materials collected during investigation and act accordingly. It is made clear that the process of investigation in the above crime numbers is without prejudice to the duty of the State to provide protection to a citizen, if the investigation reveals, threat to life.
19. In the light of the facts placed before this Court and discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1) The Home Secretary, State of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.
2) The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai.
3) The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.
4) The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.
5) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangudi Range, Pudukottai District.
6) The Inspector of Police, Malaiyoor Police Station, Pudukottai District.