Disposed

S.Anbu Raj v. Director General of Police

Madras HC20 Oct 2014CRL OP/28641/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a criminal original petition filed for protection against 'honour killing' threats. It held that since the second petitioner was a minor, she must be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate for custody decision. Directions were issued for safe transport and protection, while allowing the male petitioner's arrest but prohibiting harassment.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued for safe disbursement of the minor to the jurisdictional Magistrate and safe transport of the minor and male petitioner.

S.Anbu Raj Vs Director General of Police — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.10.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.28641 of 2014

¶6

S.Anbu Raj
2. Saranya ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Director General of Police,
Chennai.
2. Commissioner of Police,
Chennai.
3. Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City. ... Respondents
* * *
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
to direct the respondents herein to avert honour killing of the
petitioners herein at the hands of anti social elements.

¶7

. . .
For Petitioners : Mr.Mathan Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham,
Public Prosecutor
. . .
O R D E R

¶8

There are two petitioners in this petition. They have come up with this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to avert their honour-killing at the hands of the anti-social elements.

¶9

The first petitioner is an Advocate practicing before the Principal Bench of this Court for the past one year. He belongs to Maravar Community which is a Most Backward Community. The second petitioner is working in a Textile Mill in Coimbatore for the past 2 1/2 years. She is the daughter of one Mr.Dharmaraj. She belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. According to the petitioners, the second petitioner's father fixed her engagement for marriage with a 39 years

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

old man from her community against her volition. Therefore, she eloped with the first petitioner on 14.10.2014 and thereafter, the petitioners got married at Amman Koil at Madurantakam (vide para 3 of the petition). It is further stated in the petition that the second petitioner's father and his henchmen riding around 3 Sumo Vehicles with 25 persons including few police men of Madurai City and Usilampatti belonging to the same caste are chasing for the petitioners. It is also stated in the petition that the second petitioner's father belongs to an influential caste supported by a political party and he is determined to eliminate not only the first petitioner, but also his own daughter, namely, the second petitioner herein for the said caste honour. The petitioners, therefore, would state that they apprehend honour killing and are therefore in hiding ever since their marriage. With these allegations and apprehensions, the petitioners have come forward with this petition with the prayer as stated above.

¶12

On 15.10.2014, on a mention made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and on the oral instructions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, this petition was listed before me as a specially listed case on 16.10.2014 at about 4.00 p.m. At that time, both the petitioners appeared before this Court. It was submitted to the Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, that the petitioners crossed the marriageable age and accordingly, they have married on their own volition.

¶13

When a specific query was made to the learned Counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners have got any document to show that the second petitioner has attained the marriageable age as per the provisions of Personal Law as well as the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act of 2006, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the identity card issued by the employer of the second petitioner alone was available and according to the same, she has crossed 18 years of age. But, this Court was not inclined to act upon the said identity card issued by the employer of the second petitioner because, it cannot be taken as an authenticated document to prove the age of the second petitioner. However, this Court was concerned with the safety of the petitioners since, they had appeared before this Court with a plea that there was a threat to their life.

¶14

When the above position was pointed out, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second petitioner was willing to stay at Government Approved Home for Women till today i.e. on 20.10.2014 for safety purpose. The First petitioner submitted that he was going to stay at No.84/15, Sathya Nagar 1^st Street, Kovilambakkam, Chennai-117 falling within Pallikaranai Police Limits. The said statements were recorded.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

After having considered the rival submissions, this Court in para 8 of the order dated 16.10.2014 issued the following direction:

¶17

“8. In view of the above, the 1^st petitioner shall be present before this Court on 20.10.2014 at 10.30 a.m. In the meantime, in respect of any crime on the file of any of the police stations in connection with this matter, if the 1^st petitioner is arrested, he shall be forthwith released after obtaining personal bond from the 1^st petitioner by the arresting officer. The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.2 Esplanade Police Station shall take the 2^nd petitioner and handover her to the Superintendent, Child Home for Girls, No.300, Purasawalkkam High Road, Chennai-600 010 and on such production of the 2^nd petitioner, the in charge of the said Home shall keep her till 20.10.2014 and on 20.10.2014, the 2^nd petitioner shall be handed over to the Sub-Inspector of Police, B.2 Esplanade Police Station, who shall in turn, produce the 2^nd petitioner before the Court on 20.10.2014 at 10.30 a.m. For any reason, if in connection with any case in respect of this matter, the investigating officer needs to interrogate the 2^nd petitioner, he can do so after getting necessary permission from the in-charge of the Home without causing any harm to the safety and dignity of the 2^nd petitioner.”'

¶18

Today, the matter has been listed for hearing. The second petitioner has been produced by Ms.S.Leonamary, Sub-Inspector of Police, B.2 Esplanade Police Station, Chennai-104.

¶19

The second petitioner would state that she was in the Home as ordered by this Court until she has been produced before this Court today.

¶20

The first petitioner is also present before this Court. He would submit that he believed that the second petitioner had completed 18 years of age based on the identity card issued by her employer. He would further submit that on 14.10.2014, he married the second petitioner on his own volition and out of the free consent of the second petitioner. The statement of the first petitioner is recorded.

¶21

I have heard Mr.Mathan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Shanmugavelayudham, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and I have also perused the records carefully.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the second petitioner is aged 17 years 7 months and 3 days. Her date of birth is 17.03.1997. He would further submit that on the complaint of the father of the second petitioner, a case was registered in Crime No.1318/2014 for "girl missing" on 17.10.2014 at 7.15 am by the Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai. The complaint further proceeds to say that on 14.10.2014, the father of the second petitioner/defacto complainant and the second petitioner herein had come to Madurai and got down from the Bus at Kalavakkam Bus stop. Thereafter, the defacto complainant was purchasing certain eatables from a near by shop. At that time, suddenly, he found that the second petitioner was missing. According to the complaint, the second petitioner, having studied 10th standard, was working in a private Mill in Coimbatore for about 2 1/2 years.

¶24

It is now submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that during the course of investigation, it has come out that the second petitioner was kidnapped from the lawful guardianship and therefore, the case was altered into one under Section 366A I.P.C. The matter is under investigation.

¶25

On instructions from the first petitioner, who is present in Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second petitioner came on her own volition and she threatened to commit suicide if the first petitioner did not marry her. Believing that the second petitioner was a major, the first petitioner married her.

¶26

The second petitioner who is present in Court would state that she gave a phone call to the first petitioner and wanted him to come to Madurai. Accordingly, he came to Madurai bus stand where, he met the second petitioner. Thereafter, she pressurized the first petitioner to marry her. She told him that she had completed 18 years of age. Thereafter, the marriage was celebrated between them at Amman Koil, Madurantakam.

¶27

I have considered the above submissions.

¶28

As I have already pointed out, in paragraph No.3 of the petition, the petitioners have stated that there was marriage celebrated between them on 14.10.2014 at Amman Koil, Madurantakam. They make such a statement in Court also in person. But, the fact remains that according to the certificate issued by the Headmistress of TELC Higher Secondary School for Girls, Usilampatti, Madurai, where the second petitioner had studied, her date of birth is only 17.03.1997 which means, she has not completed 18 years of age.

¶29

As per the provisions of the Prevention of Child Marriages Act, 2006, marrying a girl child below 18 years is an offence which

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

is non bailable and non cognizable. It is to be further investigated whether any offence under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has been committed. Now, the FIR is pending under Section 366A I.P.C. Whether the second petitioner was taken out of the lawful guardianship of the defacto complainant or not, is a matter to be investigated. At this stage, this Court cannot express any opinion regarding the correctness of the registration or the investigation. This Court is concerned only with the security and safety of the petitioners for which alone, direction is sought for before this Court.

¶32

In my considered opinion, since the second petitioner is a girl aged less than 18 years, as it prima facie appears from the certificate issued by the Headmistress of the said School, the second petitioner has to be produced only before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and it is for the said Magistrate to decide about her custody. So far as the first petitioner is concerned, he is a major and he has attained the marriageable age. But the fact remains that he happens to be an accused.

¶33

Though, it is stated that the first petitioner believed the statement of the second petitioner that she had completed 18 years of age, which fact was known from the identity card issued by the school, being a Lawyer, that too practicing in the High Court, he should have verified the correctness of the said statement. Whatever be the case, I don't want to express any more opinion as to whether the first petitioner has committed any crime or not and it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter thoroughly.

¶34

As I have already pointed out, this Court is concerned only about the safety and security of the petitioners. In view of the same, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶35

(1)Mr.Manivannan, the Inspector of Police attached to Karimedu Police Station, Madurai who is investigating the case and who is present before this Court is directed to take the second petitioner into custody and produce her before the jurisdictional Magistrate namely, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Madurai, in connection with Crime No.1318/2014.

¶36

(2)Since, the second petitioner is a victim of the crime, it is for the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Madurai to decide about her custody. While doing so, the learned Magistrate shall have regard to the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in T.Shivakumar v. Inspector of Police (2011 (5) CTC 689).

¶37

(3)It is further directed that the Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station shall not cause any harm either to the person or to

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

the dignity of the minor girl.

¶40

(4)It is further directed that Mrs.Leona Mary, Sub Inspector of Police, B.2, Esplanade Police Station, Chennai who is present in Court shall accompany the second petitioner along with the Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai to ensure the safety of the victim girl.

¶41

(5)The Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to High Court Police Station shall permit Mrs.Leona Mary, Sub Inspector of Police, B.2, Esplanade Police Station, Chennai to accompany the second petitioner/minor girl to Madurai to produce her before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶42

(6)The Investigating Officer shall take the girl to the Government Home at Kellys, Chennai from where she has been brought in order to collect her belongings and then she will be taken to Madurai.

¶43

(7)So far as the first petitioner is concerned, if need be, the Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station who is investigating the case is at liberty to arrest him and produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The first petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and subject himself for interrogation as and when required.

¶44

(8)It is further directed that under the guise of investigation or interrogation, the first petitioner shall not be harassed by the Investigating Officer.

¶45

(9)The Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai has made endorsement acknowledging that he has taken into custody the second petitioner/minor girl in the open Court.

¶46

(10)The Investigating Officer shall do the investigation dispassionately and then file appropriate final report in accordance with law.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶49

//True Copy//

¶50

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶51

Tsi/jbm

¶52

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶53

¶54

The Director General of Police,
Chennai.
2. Commissioner of Police,
Chennai.
3. Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,Madras.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Karimedu Police station, Madurai
6.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, High Court Police Station,
Chennai.
7.The Sub Inspector of Police,
B-2, Esplanade Police Station, Chennai.
8.The Judicial Magistrate No.5,Madurai.
9.-do- thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.Mathan Kumar, Advocate Sr 50087
NG(CO)
km/20.10.
Crl.O.P.No.28641 of 2014

¶55

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Anbu Raj v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Anbu Raj v. Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kadhirvel Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Paramasivam Vs Shanmugasundaram

M.Krishnan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

V.Ilangovan Vs State by

K.Jayakumar, S/O.Karthikeyan Vs the State Rep.by Inspector of

Agri Care Vs E.Viswanathan