VIGNESH Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for direction directing the 3rd respondent to take an action on the representations dated 18.07.2020 and 10.08.2020.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and his father were illegally detained by the 5th respondent police. He further submitted that on 28.05.2020, the police persons from the 5th respondent police station came to the petitioner's house and forcefully taken his father to the 6th respondent police station and illegally detained him. Again at about 11.00 a.m., when the petitioner appeared before the 5th respondent on 28.05.2020 the father of the petitioner was taken to the 7th respondent police station and he was illegally detained till 29.05.2020. Thereafter on 29.05.2020 at about 04.30 p.m., both the petitioner and his father were shifted to the 5th respondent police and they foisted a false case in Crime No.584 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) , 447 , 387 and 506(ii) of IPC as against the petitioner, his father and others. The 5 th respondent also foisted another false case on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Rangaraj who is working as Sub-Inspector of Police, with the 5th respondent police in Crime No.587 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 189 , 294(b) , 353 , 332 , 307 and 506(ii) of IPC. He further submitted that the CCTV footages of the 5th respondent police station would clearly prove that the petitioner's father was illegally detained at the 6th respondent police and also at the 7th respondent police station. He further submitted that the mother of the petitioner has sent a detailed representation to the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police, namely the respondents 2 to 4 herein are requested to preserve the CCTV footage installed in the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 police station from 28.05.2020 to 29.05.2020. The petitioner's representation was of no avail. Therefore the petitioner's mother also sent detailed representation dated 24.06.2020 to the higher officials. Unfortunately on 26.06.2020, the District Collector rejected the representation without even conducting any enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner's father was detained under Goondas Act 14 of 1982 and imprisoned at Central Prison, Cuddalore. Thereafter, the detention was revoked by the Advisory Committee. It proves that the petitioner and his father were illegally detained by the respondents 5 to 7 herein. Therefore, the petitioner sent a detailed representation to the respondents 1 to 3 for taking appropriate action as against the respondents 5 to 7 herein.

(3.) Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the complaint lodged by one Hariharan, the 5 th respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.584 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 294(b) , 447 , 387 and 506(ii) of IPC as against the petitioner and his father and two others. In pursuant to the said crime, the petitioner and his father were arrested. In the meanwhile, on the complaint lodged by Rangaraj, the Sub-Inspector of Police, another FIR has been registered in Crime No.587 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 189 , 294(b) , 353 , 332 , 307 and 506(ii) of IPC. He further submitted that the petitioner and his father were arrested in pursuant to the Crime No.584 of 2020. They attacked the police officials in the police station. They also attacked one Jayakumar, the head constable No.725. They also attacked other police officials and as such the another crime has been registered as against the petitioner and his father. Only to escape from the clutches of law, now the present writ petition has been filed to take action as against the police officials for having registered the case as against the petitioner and his father. In fact, the District Collector has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner herein, as against which the petitioner did not prefer any appeal or filed any writ petition before this Court. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. He further submitted that as against the petitioner, there are totally four cases pending including the present two cases and as against his father including these cases totally three cases are pending for investigation on the file of the 5th respondent police station.