Disposed

D.Mahalakshmi v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC19 Dec 2017CRL OP(MD)/14874/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed respondents to promptly inquire into complaints regarding Noon Meal Scheme irregularities and potential corruption, adhering to Lalitha Kumari principles. The court ordered a one-month timeline for inquiry, immediate FIR registration upon finding a prima facie case, and a copy of closure reports to petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Direction to enquire into veracity within one month; register FIR within one week if prima facie case exists; send closure report petitioners.

D.Mahalakshmi Vs the Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.12.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14874 of 2017 and W.P.(MD)No.19632 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15908 and 15910 of 2017

¶7

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14874 of 2017:

D.Mahalakshmi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai.

¶12

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption,

¶13

Pudukkottai.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: The Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to issue appropriate directions to the 2nd respondent to register the case on the basis of the complaint sent by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent by registered post on 28.10.2017 and direct the 2nd respondent to do impartial investigation and submit a detailed report.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi, AAG assisted by Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, APP

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.19632 of 2017:

K.Thamizh Selvi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Vigilance Commissioner, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Greenways Road, Chennai.

¶23

¶24

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Pudukkottai.

¶25

4.S.Ganesan,

¶26

The District Collector, Pudukkottai District.

¶27

5.Muthu,

¶28

P.A.to District Collector, (Noon Meal Schemes) Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents

¶29

(R4 and R5 are impleaded vide order dated 12.12.2017 in W.M.P.(MD) No.16395 of 2017)

¶30

PRAYER: The Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to register an FIR on the complaint of the petitioner dated 10.10.2017, conduct enquiry into the selection process of Noon Meal Organizers made in the Pudukkottai District by the District Collector, Pudukkottai District as well as P.A.to the District Collector (Noon Meal Scheme), Pudukkottai and file a final report before this Court within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶31

For Petitioner : Ms.Verra Associates Mr.Veera Kathiravan Senior Counsel. For R1 to R3 : Mr.B.Pugalendhi, AAG assisted by Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, AGP For R5 : M/s.Ajmal Associates Mr.C.Venkateshkumar

¶32

For R4 : Absent after service of notice.

¶33

COMMON ORDER

¶34

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Additional Advocate General appearing for R1 to R3 and the learned counsel for R5 are present. The 4th respondent was served and none appeared and hence, he is set exparte.

¶35

2.The petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14874 of 2017 is filed to issue appropriate directions to the 2nd respondent to register a case on the basis of the complaint sent by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent by registered post on 28.10.2017 and also to direct https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the 2nd respondent to conduct impartial investigation and submit a detailed report.

¶36

¶37

3.The petition in W.P.(MD)No.19632 of 2017 is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 10.10.2017, conduct enquiry in respect of the selection process of Noon Meal Organizers made in the Pudukkottai District by the District Collector, Pudukkottai District as well as P.A.to the District Collector (Noon Meal Scheme), Pudukkottai and file a final report before this Court within a reasonable time.

¶38

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader has filed a status report stating that the complaint of the petitioner was taken up for conducting preliminary enquiry and totally 34 witnesses were examined so far, including the complainant and no specific materials are found and more number of complaints have also been received and those complaints have also been taken up for conducting preliminary enquiry and more than 100 witnesses have to be examined and based on these witnesses, a conclusion would be arrived at and the allegations found in the complaints are vague and are general in nature, hence, he seeks further time to complete the preliminary enquiry. He further submitted that if any prima facie case is made out, FIR would be registered and investigation would be completed.

¶39

5.Considering the averments made in both the cases, this Court direct the respondents concerned to enquire into the veracity of the complaints in adherence to the principles and directions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and others reported in 2013 (4) Crimes 243 (SC) and complete the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of the respondent police finding any prima facie case in the complaints of the petitioners, they shall register a case within a period of one week thereafter. Before taking a decision in one way or other by the respondent Police, the complaints should be heard.

¶40

6.In case of closure complaints, the respective respondent Police are directed to send a copy of the closure report to the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of closure. On receipt of the same, it is open to the petitioners either to make a private complaint or recourse to any other provisions of law.

¶41

7.With these observations, the Writ petition as well as the Criminal Original petition are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps.are closed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶44

/True Copy/

¶45

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

¶46

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶47

¶48

¶49

1.The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai.

¶50

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Pudukkottai.

¶51

3.The Vigilance Commissioner, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶52

4.The Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Greenways Road, Chennai.

¶53

+1CC to M/s.Veera Associates, SR.No. 93992

¶54

+1CC to M/s.Ajmal Associates, Advocate, SR.No. 93794

¶55

+1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.93830

¶56

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14874 of 2017 and W.P.(MD)No.19632 of 2017

¶57

19.12.2017

¶58

nbj

¶59

AM/SV MMS/SAR 3/21.12.2017/4P/8C

¶60

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

D.Mahalakshmi v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Mahalakshmi v. the Superintendent 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

Chenna Kesavan Vs the Inspector of Police

Chenna Kesavan Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvanayagi Vs John Bosco Fidelis

M.Angala Eshwari Vs the Executive Magistrate Cum

Pounraj, S/O. Alagarsamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

K.Ramasamy Vs the Inspector of Police