K KRISHNAVENI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, has stated that she was residing within the limits of Pallavaram Police Station. Her husband Kasi was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Special Security Group in Tamil Nadu Police Service. On 1.2.1995, the petitioner's daughter Kanimozhi was kidnapped by one Babu and Palani, while she was returning from School. She was illegally confined and repeatedly raped by those persons, viz. Babu and Palani. On the complaint given by the petitioner to the Inspector of Police, Pallavaram Police Station (R7), a case was registered in Cr.No.199/1995, for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC. The accused Palani was arrested and the petitioner's daughter was retrieved on 3.2.1995. Babu was not arrested. The 6th respondent, Sakthi Chandrasekaran, was employed as the Sub Inspector of Police, Pallavaram Police Station, between 15.11.1993 to 17.10.1995. The 7th respondent, Gunasekaran was the Inspector of Police, Pallavaram Police Station, during the relevant period. The 5th respondent, Thangam was the Head Constable, attached to the Pallavaram Police Station. On the pretext of conducting an enquiry, the respondents 5 to 7 took the petitioner's daughter Kanimozhi to the police station on 5.2.1995, and obtained a statement under threat, coercion and intimidation, as if she had sexual intercourse on her own volition and the same was done to suppress the offence and to help the accused. On the basis of the said statement, final report was filed before the court by the respondents 5 to 7 in collusion with the accused to frustrate the complaint. The respondents 5 to 7 abused their powers and grossly failed and neglected to discharge their duties in accordance with law. The petitioner and her relatives protested the said act of the respondents 5 to 7. Instead of taking appropriate action against the culprits, the petitioner and others were arrested, on false charges for the offences under Section 342, 323 and 354 IPC in Cr.No.721 of 1995 and for the offences under Sections 342, 506(II) IPC in Cr.No.722 of 1995, by the 6th respondent and they were detained and beaten by the respondents 5 to 7. As the respondents 5 to7 were helping the accused, the petitioner apprehended that her daughter will not get justice and therefore, she gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Chengleput District, appraising him of all the facts and requested him to entrust the investigation to the to the District Crime Branch and to hold an enquiry into the reprehensible conduct of the respondents 5 to 6. By order dated 25.7.1995, the Superintendent of Police, Chingleput District, directed the 7th Respondent to hand over the entire C.D. Files of the case (1) Cr.No.199/1995 (2) Cr.No.721/1995, (3) Cr.No.722/195 and FIR.No.90 of 1995 to the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai, for reinvestigation. As the respondents 5 to 7 did not discharge their duties properly and also did acts in abuse of their powers, they were placed under suspension, pending enquiry into grave charges against them. On the basis of the enquiry report, charges were framed under Section 3(b) of The Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, against the respondents 5 to 7 in PR.Nos.144 to 146 of 1996. All the charges are grave in nature. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and after issuing charge memo on 14.8.1995, he proceeded with the enquiry.

(2.) The respondents 5 to 7 filed OA.Nos.3392/1996, 3391/1996 and 3390/1996 respectively, to quash the order of suspension. Those petitions were dismissed by order dated 12.9.1996 with the following observations:-

(3.) It is stated that by suppressing the orders passed in the above OAs, the respondents 5 to 7 have filed OA.NOs.1089/1997, 9625/1997 and 9191/1997, respectively, before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, to quash the charge memo issued by the 2nd respondent and the Tribunal passed an interim order on 25.11.1997, restraining the 2nd and 3rd respondents from passing final orders on the charge memo, till the criminal case registered against the accused persons in SC.No.19/1997, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Chingleput is disposed of.