Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6.The petitioner's contention is that the complaint, in which, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for 13 days by the fifth respondent was subsequently investigated by the Inspector of Police, Organized Crime Unit, CBCID, Tirunelveli, and final report was filed on 07.01.2013, closing the complaint as it was a false one. http://www.judis.nic.in

7.The petitioner claims that in view of the illegal confinement, his reputation and career have spoiled and his income has come to nil. Because, he has given a genuine complaint against the public servant namely, Soundarrajan, Divisional Engineer, as a counter-blast, the associates of the Said Soundarrajan and other Contractors have lodged a false complaint against him through E.Murugan. The fifth respondent – S.Syed Ibrahim, Assistant Commissioner of Police in connivance with the associates of the said Soundarrajan, has registered the false complaint, arrested the writ petitioner and remanded him to judicial custody without following the procedure contemplated under the law and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the State is vicariously liable for the misdeed of its Servant namely, S.Syed Ibrahim, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli and therefore, direction is sought to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the atrocities faced by the writ petitioner.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the final report in Crime No.62 of 2011, in which, the writ petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for 13 days would clearly show that the complaint is a fertile imagination emanated from R.S.Murugan and others, in which, S.Syed Ibrahim, Assistant Commissioner of Police, has connived with them and arrested the writ petitioner without following the procedure under law. The final report at length disclosed about the various dispute between the writ petitioner and R.S.Murugan. The conclusion of the Investigation Officer as found in the final report is that at the instigation of R.S.Murugan, his associate E.Natarajan through his http://www.judis.nic.in brother E.Murugan, has given a false complaint against the writ petitioner. The fifth respondent viz., S.Syed Ibrahim, Assistant Commissioner of Police, City Crime Branch, without proper investigation, has registered the case and in haste, arrested the writ petitioner and remanded him to judicial custody and the complaint of E.Murugan was found to be a false one on conducting enquiry.

10.From the affidavit averments and the documents relied by the writ petitioner, it appears that the criminal complaint given by E.Murugan, in which, the writ petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, later found to be a false complaint after examining 88 witnesses. For foisting false complaint, the writ petitioner holds the State to be vicariously liable and has filed the present Writ Petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondents 1 to 4.

''2. I state that the entire allegation made against me in the writ petition is totally false and concocted one. Actually I received a current paper from the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, on 16.12.2011 with endorsement to take appropriate action. When I gone through the complaint it is seen that the defacto complainant namely E.Murugan has asked a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- for interest from the writ petitioner. Accordingly the writ petitioner paid the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for 10% interest on 16.10.2009, further for security purpose the writ petitioner demanded and collected unfilled promissory notes and original property documents from the defacto complainant. As per the terms and conditions, the de-