Madras High Court
M.Somappa vs The Superintendent Of Police on 28 July, 2016
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.7.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
H.C.P.No.911 of 2016
M.Somappa .... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Assistant Superintendent of Police,
Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Hudco Police Station,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4. Mr.Prakash ..... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS directing the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's daughter Nandini, aged about 17 years before this Court and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.M.Anantha Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) This is an unfortunate case. The petitioner, a plumber by profession and a poor man, is the father of one Nandini, whose date of birth is 08.06.1998. The petitioner's wife is one Mrs. Sankaramma. They have got four children including Miss. Nandini. The petitioner's brother is one Mr. Venkatesh. Mr.Venkatesh has got a son by name Prakash. Thus, Mr.Prakash is a cousin, falling within the supinda relationship of Nandini.
2. The allegation is that on 14.11.2015 around 6 am, Miss Nandini (hereinafter referred to as detenue) was kidnapped by Prakash and she was missing from that day onwards. The petitioner made a complaint to Hudco Police Station in Krishnagiri District on 18.11.2015, upon which a case in Cr.No. 689 of 2015 has been registered under Section 366 (A) of IPC against Mr.Prakash and few others. It is the grievance of the petitioner that there was no effective steps taken by the 3rd respondent to trace out the missing detenue girl. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition on 28.4.2016.
3. When this Habeas Corpus Petition came up for hearing on 29.04.2016, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor took notice for the official respondents, viz., respondents 1 to 3. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned. Though this Habeas Corpus Petition has been pending from 29.4.2016 onwards, the detenue was not secured and produced before this Court in the past.
4. Today, when this Habeas Corpus Petition came up for hearing, the 3rd respondent produced the detenue before this Court. The detenue admits that she is now 7 months pregnant. She further admits that her date of birth is 08.06.1998. The Birth Certificate filed before this Court also shows that her date of birth is 08.06.1998. Thus, on the date of kidnapping, that was on 14.11.2015, she was a child in terms of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The detenue would inform us that on 14.11.2015, she was taken by the 4th respondent and he married her in a temple at Palani on 15.1.2016. She would also state that she is aware of the fact that she could not have a valid marriage with Prakash due to the above supinda relationship. Further, he would submit that since she has been living all along with the 4th respondent as his wife and since, shortly, she is going to give birth to a child born out of the void marriage, she would prefer only to go back to the house of the 4th respondent and to live with him. Admittedly, as on today, the detenue has attained majority. Therefore, she has got freedom to decide about her future.
5. The petitioner has made appearance along with his wife. He would submit that he and his other family members feel ashamed of the above marriage between the detenue and the 4th respondent because of the supinda relationship. He would further submit that all these days, he was trying to trace out the detenue, but could not succeed. Finally, on 23.7.2016, when the detenue was secured by the police, he came to know of the marriage and the pregnancy out of the same. He would further submit that on knowing the above said void marriage and the pregnancy of the detenue, his son by name Munesh, studying VIII standard, unable to bear the above, committed suicide by hanging. A case was registered in respect of the same by the police. The petitioner and his wife wept before this Court and shed tears, unconsolably.
6.The plight of the petitioner and his wife is not only on account of the missing of the detenue, but also on account of the consequential suicide by their son. The petitioner would further submit that the 4th respondent has thrown a challenge that he would not spare the petitioner and his wife to live. Thus, according to the petitioner and his wife, there is a serious threat to the lives of the petitioner and his wife and other family members and they are living in constant fear.
7. The 3rd respondent would submit that the 4th respondent was arrested in connection with the present case and remanded to judicial custody. He would further submit that the case would be altered to one under the provisions of POCSO Act and further investigation would be taken.
8. In the above stated circumstances, we cannot compel the detenue to return to her parental home as she wants to go back with the 4th respondent. Therefore, we set her at liberty to choose her own way of life as she is a major, having freedom to decide about her future. Now, turning to the plight of the petitioner and his wife, now on account of the above, they have lost the life of their son, studying in VIII standard.
9. When we invited the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to express his view as to why we should not order compensation from the Victim Compensation Fund to the petitioner and his wife, as they are victims, on account of the crime committed by the 4th respondent in kidnapping the detenue and also for having committed offence under POCSO Act, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that if the scheme permits, it could be ordered.
10. We have gone through Section 357(A) of Cr.P.C and Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme also. In our considered view, Section 357(A) of Cr.P.C which was introduced with an object of compensating the victims states that under the scheme, the State Government is bound to pay compensation to the victims. The term victim has been defined in Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C which states that, "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir.
11. We are of the view that in the instant case, not only the detenue is the victim, the petitioners as well, because they have suffered loss of their son which is the result of the above crime allegedly committed by the 3rd respondent and they have also suffered injury. Here, we want to clarify that injury does not indicate only physical injury alone as it includes injury of the mind also. In such view of the matter, we hold that the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme.
12. We are conscious of the fact that for granting compensation, we may direct the parties to approach before the State or District legal Services Authority seeking compensation. But, having regard to the plight of the petitioner and the peculiar facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate not to direct the petitioner and his wife to approach these two authorities and instead we direct the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation to the petitioner and his wife from and out of the Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme and such payment shall be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be reported before this Court.
13. We are also considered about the threat to the lives of the petitioner and his wife and other family members. We direct the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, Inspector of Police/3rd respondent herein to ensure the safety and security of the petitioner and his wife and other family members. We also direct the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Krishnagiri District to ensure that there is sufficient protection and safety to the lives of the petitioner and his family members to be provided by the police.
14. We also give opportunity to the petitioner and his wife to approach the police seeking any kind of security as and when required and also the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority for the same. We also make it clear that if the threat to their lives continues and if they feel that sufficient security is not ensured by the police, they are at liberty to knock at the doors of this Court straightaway and stand before us seeking justice.
15. The detenue would submit that since the 4th respondent is in prison as a remand prisoner, she has got no place to reside now and therefore, she may be permitted to reside at Government aided Nambikai Natchathiram Home, Hosur Town, Krishnagiri District, until the 4th respondent is released from prison. The 3rd respondent may entrust the detenue to the Superintendent of the said Home by 28.7.2016 or 29.7.2016.
16. Call the case after two weeks for reporting compliance.
17. The print and electronic media are requested not to disclose the names of the persons or their family members at the larger interest of the respective parties.
(S.N.J.,) (V.B.D.J.,)
28.07.2016
Index: Yes
kua
Note: Issue today (28.7.2016)
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District,
Krishnagiri.
2. The Assistant Superintendent of Police,
Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Hudco Police Station,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
S.NAGAMUTHU J.,
AND
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
kua
H.C.P.No.911 of 2016
28.07.2016