This instant order dismisses a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking compensation for alleged custodial torture. The Court examined the action taken report and counter-affidavits, which established that the petitioner failed to appear for a police enquiry. Consequently, the Court found no case for indulgence and rejected the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 28.02.2017
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD)No. 3048 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 M. Kalyani ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Public Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai. 3. The District Collector, Pudukottai Collectore Office, Pudukkottai District. 4. The District Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District – 622 001. 5. The Sub Inspector of Police, Panayapatti Police Station, Pudukottai District. 6. Karthika Sub Inspector of Police, Panayapatti Police Station, Pudukkottai District. (R-6 impleaded as per order dated 12.06.2014 in M.P.No.2 of 2013) ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to grant compensation for a sum of Rs.10 00 000/- (Ten Lakhs) for the custodial torture done to the Petitioner on 24.01.2013 by the 5th Respondent Sub Inspector. For Petitioner : Mr. M.S.Suresh Kumar For Respondents 1 to 5 : Mr.T.R.Janarthanam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Additional Government Pleader. For 6th Respondent : No Appearance
2
ORDER
Alleging of certain ill-treatment and physical torture by the fifth respondent, the present writ petition has been filed seeking for direction to the first respondent for compensation.
2.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fifth respondent had summoned the petitioner who is a flower vendor in Panayapatti bus stand in connection with a case of girl missing. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who was no way in connected with the offence, was detained in the police station from 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m and was physically tortured owing to which, she had taken treatment in the Government hospital. The petitioner had also made several representations to the State Human Rights Commission and the Chief Minister's cell and to the police higher officials. Since no action was taken against her complaints, the present writ petition has been filed.
3.The sixth respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying physical torture meted out to the petitioner. According to the sixth respondent, the petitioner was enquired in the police station at 3.00 p.m and after obtaining statement under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner was permitted to leave and hence there was no illegal detention.
4.The fourth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was informed at 11.00 a.m on 24.1.2013 to come to the police station for enquiry and consequently, her statement under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained at 3.00 p.m.
5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, the fourth respondent, is personally present before this Court and had produced the action taken report based on the complaints given by the petitioner with regard to the averments of physical torture. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, the third respondent had forwarded the same to the fourth respondent, based on which the petitioner was called upon to be present for an enquiry. However the petitioner did not turn up for enquiry and hence a statement was taken from two Head Constables as well as an independent person. All these three witnesses have stated that the petitioner had not appeared for the enquiry. Hence the petitioner's complaint came to be closed on 01.03.2013. On a perusal of the counter affidavit and the action taken report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case for any indulgence. Nevertheless, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is open to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ her to approach the appropriate forum to redress her grievance.
3
6.With the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013 is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar (AS)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
| 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Public Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. |
|---|
| 2. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai. |
| 3. The District Collector, Pudukottai Collectore Office, Pudukkottai District. |
| 4. The District Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District – 622 001. |
| 5. The Sub Inspector of Police, Panayapatti Police Station, Pudukottai District. |
| + 1 CC TO Mr.M.S.SURESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 11829 + 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 11613 |
| SMS/PNN TE/CM : 09/03/2017 : 3P/8C |
| W.P.(MD)Nos.3048 of 2013 and |
| M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2013 28.02.2017 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus to grant compensation for alleged custodial torture should be issued given the police station's record shows the petitioner did not appear for an enquiry.
Whether the petitioner has made out a case for judicial intervention regarding the alleged illegal detention and torture.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M. Kalyani
The State of Tamil Nadu
The Director General of Police
The District Collector, Pudukkottai
The District Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai
Karthika Sub Inspector of Police, Panayapatti
M.S.RAMESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
