BASKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent herein to depute a competent investigating officer to take up the complaint dated 23.03.2010 given to the second respondent and register a case based on the complaint.

(2.) THE petitioner informs that he was forcibly taken by police in plain clothes at about 6.45 a.m. on 16.02.2010 from the residence of his employer. He was pushed into a van and his two wheeler was also taken along. THE petitioner further informs that his eyes were tied with a cloth and a gun was kept at his hip, threatening to put an end to his life and thereafter he was taken to an undisclosed place somewhere near ECR road. After reaching the said place, he was severely attacked with lathies, keeping him in a room. He was also attacked severely by some other police men, who already were stationed there and that while beating him severely, the Head of the Police team which kidnapped the petitioner had insisted and forced him to admit that he abetted a crime committed by one Singh of Tirunelveli. As a result of severe beating his ears and nose were bleeding and the Inspector of Police by name Suriyakumar, who is one of the assailants had taken him to a nearby doctor known to him for treatment and the beating was continued the next day. Later, he was again taken to a place nearby called Hotel Sathkar at Kilpauk where Srilankan refugees were staying and illegally detained there. He was continuously beaten severely by adopting various methods and the petitioner was subjected to all sorts of humiliation, harassment and torture. After taking the petitioner and his vehicle in the van, the police team decided to take him to Tirunelveli. Before proceeding to Tirunelveli, the police men wanted to drop the vehicle of the petitioner in a nearby police station. Accordingly, they have approached some police stations. THEy have finally approached Sembium Police Station, Chennai in this regard. All such stations refused their request. THE police team then took the petitioner and his vehicle to Tirunelveli. Enroute to Tirunelveli, the police team obtained signatures of the petitioner in some statements prepared by them and in some blank papers under threat and coercion. Before he was taken to Tirunelveli, they had passed on some information to the relatives of the petitioner by using his cell phone. THE petitioner submits that the police team took him and his vehicle to Tirunelveli where they reached on 18.02.2010 at about 2.30a.m. After reaching Tirunelveli, he was detained illegally in a room located opposite the office of the Higher police officials. THEre also he was beaten up and they had compelled him to plead guilty of an offence. THE police team again had taken him to a nearby camp at Tiruneveli at about 12 noon on 18.02.2010. He was shown to some persons who were detained by them. Such persons were asked to point out the petitioner as the offender in the case framed by the police team. On the evening of 18.02.2010, he was entrusted to Munneerpallam Police Station and after detaining him there, a case was registered in the evening after 6.00 p.m. on 19.02.2010 falsely on the allegation that he was in possession of a rifle and wandering in valliyur area on a two wheeler and that one of the persons, who accompanied him was having a country bomb. THE petitioner submits that in the said police station, they have further obtained the signatures of the petitioner in various statements prepared by them and also in the blank papers and the contents contained therein were not known to him. THE petitioner was produced before a Magistrate. Even prior to that, the father of the petitioner had filed a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court in HCP No. 313 of 2010 to trace out the whereabouts of the petitioner, following the telegrams and complaint given after he was illegally kidnapped and detained.

(3.) MAKING allegations as above, the petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to depute a competent investigating agency to conduct investigation and take proper action against the accused persons and on the basis of the complaint dated 23.03.2010. While learned counsel for the petitioner would stress on the above contentions, learned Public Prosecutor would inform that the allegations made by the petitioner are totally untrue. The petitioner was found in possession of arms and was arrested along with other accused in Crime No. 138 of 2010 and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli by the Munneerpallam Police. Arms recovered have been deposited before the Court. A case of murder of the year 2007 went undetected. One S.S.S.Shyam Sunder Singh Nadar was arrested on 07.02.2009 in connection with a case under Section 307 IPC in Crime No. 138 of 2010 on the file of the K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Chennai. Such person was taken into custody and during the course of interrogation, it was found that this petitioner was the prime accused in the case of murder committed in 2007 at Tirunelveli, which had gone undetected. Such interrogation further revealed that pursuant to the arrest of S.S.S. Shyam Sundar Singh Nadar on 07.02.2009 and towards taking revenge, arms had been procured by the petitioner and others towards committing murder. In the course of interrogation, S.S.S.Shyam Sunder Singh Nadar particularly disclosed such as the purpose of deputing this petitioner to Tirunelveli. Informing the above, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in the circumstance, the allegations made by the petitioner of having been taken into illegal custody were false. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the status report filed by the Inspector of Police, which reads as follows: