P KALYANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by name P. Kalyani has filed the above writ petition to quash the records in Crime No. 69 of 93 on the file of Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station, Villupuram District and the First Information Report in the said Crime Number dated 26 -1-93 by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari and direct the first respondent-Government of Tamil Nadu to pay reasonable amount as compensation by way of Writ of Mandamus. The petitioner by name P. Kalyani has filed the above writ petition to quash the records in Crime No. 69 of 93 on the file of Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Police Station, Villupuram District and the First Information Report in the said Crime Number dated 26 -1-93 by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari and direct the first respondent-Government of Tamil Nadu to pay reasonable amount as compensation by way of Writ of Mandamus.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: Initially he joined as Demonstrator in Physics in 1969 in the Education Department of Government of Tamil Nadu and was posted in the Agricultural College, Madurai. He was upgraded as Assistant Professor in Physics on 1-12-77. While he was working in the Government Arts College, Villupuram, he was transferred to A. Govindasamy Government Arts College, Tindivanam in January, 1981 and continues to work in the said college. The local police foisted a false case against him on 26-01-93 and harass and terrorise him as he involved in helping the people who are victims of various injustice in and around Tindivanam. He himself involved in many social activities and human rights violations and fought against Government departments particularly police department. He involved in various agitations/organisations arranged for students. He was arrested on 27-1-93 at about 4.15 a.m. by the then Inspector of Police, Tindivanam. A group of policemen consisting of more than 20 were present at the time of his arrest and he was taken to Olakkur Police Station which is 10 k.m. away from Tindivanam. The police officer was not willing to disclose the grounds and reason for his arrest. He was taken to Tindivanam and produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I by the 4th respondent at about 5.15 P. M. on 27-01-1993. There was a large crowd in and around the court premises. He was taken to the court room at about 7.30 P.M and the learned Magistrate passed an order remanding him to custody. He was directed to be produced on the next day. Immediately, he was taken to Olakkur Police Station and he was kept in the night on 27-01-93. Thereafter he was produced before the Magistrate at about 2 P.M. on 28-01-9 3 with a second remand application adding Section 7 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He was remanded to judicial custody till 11 -02-93. After getting an order of bail, he was released at about 5.3 0 P.M. on 28-1-93. He came to know that one P. Panneerselvam, 5th respondent made a complaint against him as if he was making some statements to the students instigating them to commit certain offences. The first information report reveals that the said complaint was made at 23.00 hours to the police on 26-01-1993 and the same was registered in Crime No. 69/93 under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities ( Prevention) Act, 1967. The said allegation reveals that he was instigating students and others near the bus-stand near Gandhi statue near the municipal office for 4 days prior to the complaint. The alleged first information report is a concocted document and the police had utilised the co-operation of the 5th respondent to create such a false complaint against him only to harass him and to give a warning signal to others who are active in exposing the misdeeds of the Police in Tindivanam. Though the 5th respondent claims to be an office bearer of Dr. Ambedkar Mandram, he is well-known bootlegger in Tindivanam Town. The 5th respondent became the tool of the 4th respondent for harassing him by implicating him in a false case. The first information report in Crime No.69 of 93 is a concocted document and the same was created on mala fide intention of the 4th respondent and his associates. Further, the author of the said first information report, namely, 5 th respondent is a known bootlegger. The first information report was created to take vengeance against the petitioner who is a forerunner and fighting for the cause of the students.

(3.) Pursuant to the Rule Nisi, the Joint Secretary to the Government, Home Department, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is a chuvanist instigating the Dalit and downtrodden community often to agitate against the Government. He is not a social worker and not a member of any service organisation. He came to adverse notice of the police on several occasions. The police never abused their power as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner mischievously uses the circumstances that had prevailed at Tindivanam due to the students agitation. The petitioner is not an innocent or ignorant of his rights on detention. The petitioner was fully aware of the cause of his arrest. The complaint of Panneerselvam made out a cognizable offence and the respondents had to register and investigate the case. The perusal of the complaint of Panneerselvam is a matter which has to be decided by the Court of law and not the investigating agency. The case of the petitioner is still under investigation. The present investigation is also being hampered due to the release of the petitioner on bail as the witnesses are afraid that the petitioner may trigger his hirelings in case they support the prosecution. This is the main reason for pendency of investigation of Crime No.69/93. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.