ARUMUGHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, on 30-8-91, a police constable attached to rasipuram Police Station came to his residence at Namagiripettai and informed that Sub Inspector of Police (Crimes) wanted him to go over to the Station. He accompanied the constable to Rasipuram Police Station. THE Sub Inspector of police, Mr. Ganesan, took him in a Metador van, TSE 2073 to Moolapallipatti and went to his father-in-law, K. Duraiswamy's house, brought him out and forced him to get into the said van, the Sub Inspector (Crimes)showed an unidentifiable and unknown person and threatened them that they have received jewels from the said unidentifiable person. When they denied the false statement, they were threatened with dire consequences, and so saying the Sub inspector of Police trespassed into his house at Moolapallipatti without any authority of law, and snatched away jewels weighing about 5 sovereigns then worn by his children. THEreafter, the petitioner and his father-in-law were taken to Rasipuram Police Station and the Sub Inspector of Police started man-handling and torturing them and compelled them to accept as though they have received stolen jewels from the said unidentifiable person and detained them in illegal custody on the night of 30-8-91 at the Rasipuram Police station. On 31-8-91 morning he asked the petitioner to part with another 2 sovereigns of jewels. Again the Sub Inspector of Police went and enquired them in the solitary cell where the petitioner and his father-in-law were detained, without any authority of law at 9 a. m. on 31-8-91 and shocked them by saying that the said unidentifiable personal had stated to him that he had given another 5 sovereigns of jewels to them and therefore, unless they part with 7 more sovereigns of jewels, they would not be allowed to go out. THEy have expressed their inability and impossibility to part with any further jewels. Due to unbearable of the tortures inflicted on them and the repeated threatening resistance, the petitioner had to accept his illegal demand of making cash payment of Rs. 41,700/ -. His wife raised the said fund by pledging 13 numbers of Indira Vikas Bonds which stood in the name of his father-in-law from one Natarajan, Vallakalpatti, the total face value of which being rs. 22,000/ -. He has raised a loan of Rs. 15,000/- from the said R. Natarajan against its face value of Rs. 22,000/ -. By making other arrangements, he gave a total sum of Rs. 36,700/- to the said Ganesan, Sub Inspector of Police. He also demanded another sum of Rs. 3000/- as mamool for him and Rs. 250/- for the constables from the said Rs. 36,700/- paid by them. Only at 9 p. m. on 1-9-91 the Sub inspector of Police came to their cell and released them with severe warnings and serious consequences if they reveal about their illegal detention in their custody. THEreafter, he met the Deputy Superintendent of Police and told him that he has given Rs. 36,700/- to the Sub Inspector of Police out of Rs. 41,700/-and Rs. 5000/- was due to him. Since the Deputy Superintendent of police did not take any action, he gave a petition to Mr. Hariharan, Inspector General of police (Crimes), Madras on 6-9-91. On coming to know his petition to the higher authorities, the said Ganesan, Sub Inspector of Police trespassed into his house and snatched away'thali'chain worn by his sister weighing about 5 sovereigns and he informed his wife that he (petitioner) could pay the further amount of Rs. 5000/- and collect back the said jewel. Again he preferred another complaint with the Inspector General of Police (Crimes), Madras in person on 7-9-91 informing about the snatching away of jewels of 5 sovereigns belonged to his sister. THE Inspector General of Police (Crimes) Madras assured him that he would inquire into the episode thoroughly. THE petitioner was taken by the Sub inspector of Police (Crimes), Rasipuram to the residence of one Thangavel Asari of Namagiripettai who is a gold smith by profession. Due to torture and mental agony caused by the said Sub Inspector of Police, his father-in-law got himself admitted in the Government Hospital, Mettur from 10-9-91 to 22-9-91. THE Sub inspector of Police, Rasipuram made his relative one Jayamani to prefer a complaint at Athur Police Station on 19-9-91 as though she lost her jewels while she was in the hospital. He caused to register a case in Cr. No. 764/91 showing one Thangaraj alias Kanvali as the accused, who is the close relative of one constable, Jayakumar of Namagiri Police Station alleging that he sold them to his father-in-law for a paltry sum of Rs. 10,000/- and out of which rs. 2,000/- was received by the accused Thangaraj and the balance of Rs. 8,000/-would be accepted to be paid after the said jewels are sold through Thangavel asari, Namagiripettai and for that purpose they allege that the jewels were handed over to the said Thangavel Asari and that in the absence of the said asari, the said jewels were recovered from his wife, Tmt. Amudham, on being identified by his father-in-law-K. Duraiswamy, on 20-9-91 and deposited the same in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Athur, on 20-9-91.

(2.) IT is further stated that the Sub Inspector of Police (Crimes), Athur at the instigastion and inducement of the said Ganesan hastened to make the accused, Thangaraj alias Kanvali to put-forth a voluntary plea of guilty before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Athur so that immediately after the case is over, all the jewels could be handed over to Jayamanai, p. W. 1, in C. C. No. 255/91, a close relative of the Sub Inspector, Ganesan, as he originally planned. At this stage, on 9-1-92, his father-in-law filed crl. M. P. No. 90/92 before the said Magistrate bringing out the aforesaid facts to the notice of the learned Magistrate and under such circumstances not to accept the so called voluntary plea of guilty which would not be so in the actual sense but for the case set up by the police. But, the learned Magistrate has not accepted his father-in-law's request and dismissed the application. During the pendency of the trial of the above case, he has filed a petition on 31-10-91, in Crl. M. P. No. 3757/91 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, athur for the return of the said jewels seized in C. C. No. 255/91. The same is still pending. At the instance of the Sub Inspector of Police-Ganesan, jayamani, P. W. 1, in C. C. No. 255/91 to file a similar petition in Crl. M. P. No. 3759/91 claiming return of jewels seized in this case. The same is also pending before the same Magistrate. Meanwhile, on 30-1-92, the learned Judicial magistrate No. 1, Athur, after accepting the purposeful voluntary plea of guilty of the accused, Kanvili alias Thangaraj, sentenced him to undergo 18 months rigorous imprisonment. But the Magistrate had stated in the said order that order regarding return of properties seized in that case would be passed separately after conducting enquiry into the Crl. M. P. No. 3757 and 3759/91 filed by him and Jayamani respectively. The complaint filed by him on 6-9-91, 7-9-91 and 13-11-91 against the said Ganesan, Sub Inspector of Police, Rasipuram, comprised of the commission of offences of "public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act; fabricating false evidence", public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report etc. , contrary to law, using evidence known to be false, giving false information respecting an offence committed, dishonestly making false claim in court, using criminal force, extortion, criminal trespass, criminal intimidation, punishable under various sections and the respondent police are statutorily required to take cognizance of his complaints dated 6-9-91, 7-9-91 and 13-11-91 and file a final report before the competent court for launching appropriate proceedings against the said Ganesan, Sub Inspector of Police and his subordinates. The finality of the factum in issue viz. , the return of jewels seized in C. C. No. 255/91 could be decided only after the filing of final report by the first respondent. Such report had not yet been filed before the lower court and the non-registration of complaints filed by the petitioner on 6-9-91, 7-9-91 and 13-11-91 deprives his fundamental rights, personal liberty, right to possess his own pproperties etc. , guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; hence the present Writ Petition for appropriate direction.

(3.) I have carefully considered the rival submissions.