PRABHAKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 4(82) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to : (1) call for the entire records connected with Cr. No. 427 of 2002 on the file of the 6th respondent, which is being investigated by the third respondent and quash the same, (2) direct the respondents 1 to 6 to pay fair, just and reasonable compensation to the petitioner for the foisting of the false case against her and also direct the 7th respondent to pay the amount, as this Court may deem fit and proper, to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority for her part in the incident; and (3) direct the 8th respondent to take over the investigation of the case in Cr. No. 428/2002 and also the commissions and omissions of a number of public servants in dealing with Cr. No. 427/2002, conduct the investigation under the direct supervision of the Joint Director of CBI at Chennai.

(2.) THE petitioner, a practicing Advocate at Gingee in Villupuram District having enrolled in the year 2001, would submit in her affidavit that she is a social worker working among the downtrodden Dalits in particular the Dalit women; that before her enrolment as an Advocate, she served as a nun of Services Congregation under the Roman Catholic Church for more than a decade and during the said period, she qualified herself as a Staff Nurse and was serving as such in the dispensaries run by the Congregation in the slums of Kolkotta and also at the Maria Matern Hospital, Sargani in Sivaganga District; that when she was serving as such, she came across various incidents of atrocities committed against the Dalits, more particularly the Dalit women and in order to assist the Dalits, she left the Congregation for getting more access to the legal system and as illiteracy and poverty were the main reasons for the sufferings of Dalits, she thought it fit to equip herself to help them in their causes and hence did her M.A. (Political Science) and completed the law course in the year 1998 as a result of which she was able to effectively assist the deprived Dalits, whenever they were attacked and atrocities were committed against them.

(3.) THE petitioner would further submit that on 21.10.2002, a local Tamil Daily'Nam Dhinamathi'carried a news item, wherein it is reported that a complaint had been preferred by the seventh respondent herein, as if the petitioner abused her by making a mention of her caste name when she came along with others to the petitioner's house on 18.10.2002 with regard to the complaint preferred by Salve of Ethapattu, and it was clear from the news report itself that the complaint was a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner and even though the 4th respondent was aware that the complaint preferred against the petitioner was totally false, the Police had deliberately registered the F.I.R. in Cr. No. 427 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act based on the said false complaint as if it was preferred earlier and registered her complaint preferred on 18.10.2002 only on 20.10.2002 to make it appear that they were acting promptly; that she was shocked over the sheer abuse of powers by the police, who were harbouring vengeance towards her and hence she sent a detailed representation dated 22.10.2002 to the respondents 1 and 2 and others but till date no action is initiated; that when the 5th respondent was in-charge of DSP, Gingee as the 4th respondent was on leave, she met him at Valathi P.S. on 23.12.2002 at about 11.00 a.m. to represent the case regarding the atrocity against dalits of Annamangalam, made by one Rajaram, the 5th respondent warned her that it was not proper on her part to represent, while the F.I.R. is pending against her; that even a number of women, Human Rights and Dalit Activists also have made various representations to the respondents and others to look into the matter and withdraw the false case preferred against her; that she is given to understand that the false complaint is being hotly pursued with the recording of statements of four persons, including the 7th respondent under Section 164 Cr.P.C. only to teach her a lesson for having worked for the Rule of law and assisted the victims to take legal recourse. On such grounds, the petitioner would pray to the relief extracted supra.