AROKIA MARY LUCIA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 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 the same day i. e. on 18. 10. 2002, evening, herself and three other Advocate-colleagues by names Mr. Jose, Vivekanandan and Venkatesan lodged a complaint with the fourth respondent against the seventh respondent herein, who is the aunt of the said muthu, and others thus seeking prompt action, who instructed the 6th respondent to summon the accused to be present before him at 10. 00 a. m. further requiring the petitioner also to come to the police station; that the fourth respondent forwarded the complaint to the concerned police station on 19. 10. 2002 and directed the Sub Inspector of Police to register the FIR and even though the sub Inspector of Police received the complaint on 19. 10. 2002, he did not register the FIR nor did he take any action against the persons named in the complaint; that in the morning of 19. 10. 2002, she was informed that the accused persons named by the said Selvi appeared before the Avalurpet Police Station and they were accompanied by more than 100 persons secured in a lorry under the leadership of one Sakkarai of Paruthipuram Village, who is known for his nexus with the Avalurpet Police and who used to settle cases by extorting money from the parties and sharing with Police; that however, at about 1. 30 p. m. , when herself and her advocate-colleagues Vivekanandan and Venkatesan were proceeding towards Avalurpet Police Station, they met the fourth respondent near the police Station and when they asked him about the enquiry with regard to the complaint, he replied that it was not possible for him to give protection to the petitioner all the time and therefore it was better for her to compromise the matter.