P NATARAJAN Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C., Cr1. M.P. No. 226 of 1990 for the issue of directions to the respondent therein, who is the Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Chidambaram, to register the F.I.R. on the complaint given by the petitioner therein on 4.1.1990 and investigate the matter and dispose it of in accordance with law and Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990 for a direction to the first respondent therein who is the Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Chidambaram, to recieve the complaint of the petitioner therein dated 5.1.1990, register it in accordance with law since a cognizable offence was disclosed, investigate the matter and dispose of the complaint in accordance with law.

(2.) A few facts are necessary for the disposal of these petitions. The petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990 claims to be the proprietor of J.P. Jewellery at Chidambaram. On the midnight of 3/4-1-1990 at about 12.30 a.m. four persons are alleged to have entered into his house posing themselves as Police Officers. The petitioner was then fast asleep. One Natarajan, the petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 226 of 1990, a tenant occupying the first-floor portion of the same premises, asked those persons about their identity. Those men, who were armed with sticks and lathis, threatened the tenant. The petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990, who woke up, meanwhile, questioned them about their identity, which only resulted in threats and nothing more. When the doors were opened, according to the petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990, the four intruders pounced upon Natarajan, the petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 226 of 1990, beat him severely, apart from using filthy and vulgar languages against the women folk. The petitioner in Cr. M.P. 613 of 1990, who pleaded on behalf of Natarajan, was also attacked. The intruders wanted some jewels to be given to them on the guise that they were stolen property. The petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990 was dragged to the van, which was parked nearby. It is also stated in Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990, that the neighbours, Palani and Krishnan, were also assaulted by the intruders. The petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990 was taken on the morning of 4.1.1990 to B-1 Police Station at Madurai and he was not make aware as the offence committed by him and why he was taken into custody. He alleges that he was beaten up severely in the lock-up. Within the statutory period, he was not produced before any Magistrate at Madurai. The petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990, on enquiry, found that one of the intruders was Mr, Dixon, the Sub Inspector of Police, B-2 Police Station at Madurai, and he was unable to ascertain the names of the other persons, who had accompanied Mr. Dixon, but he is certain that he can identified them. He was freed on the midnight of 4 .1.1990. While in custody, according to the petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990, he was forced to sing in four plain papers. He arrived at Chidambaram on 5.1.1990 and learnt that his wife Mrs. Padma had sent telegrams regarding all that had happened on the midnight of 3.1.1990 inclusive of the abduction and illegal detention of the petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990 to the higher officials in the Police Department as well as the Chief i Minister of Tamil Nadu. She also appears to have given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Chidambaram, as well as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chidambaram, through Chidambaram Jewellery Association. It is stated in the affidavit of the petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990 that both the officials refused to receive the corn. plaint. It is also stated in the petition in Cr1. M.P, No. 613 of1990 that the Jewellers Association had also complained to the police and they refused to take note of it. After an emergency meeting convened on 4.1.1990, the Jewellers Association passed a resolution condemning the police action, and observed a total hartal on 4.1.1990 of all the jewellery shops at Ch ida mba ram.

(3.) The petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990, after returning to Chidambaram, appears to have lodged a complaint against Mr. Dixon and four others, who had abducted and wrongfully restrained him on the night of 3/4-1-1990. Allegations were also made in the complaint regarding the assault by those persons on him and his having been subjected to illegal custody. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chidambaram, refused (0 receive the complaint. The petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990 thereafter met the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Chidambaram and presented his complaint. It was also refused by the higher Police Officer. It is under those circumstances that the petitioner in Cr1. M.P. No. 613 of 1990 seeks directions, as aforementioned.