FRANCIS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is employed in the Electricity Board as a line man and that there had been a civil dispute regarding partition between the petitioner and his brothers. While so, the elder brother's wife and children are alleged to have attacked the Petitioner's wife and son. Based on which, the Petitioner's wife and son had given a complaint from their hospital bed, which was recorded by the Police Constable, who visited the Hospital on intimation. Subsequently, the Respondent Police had not registered any case. While so, it is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that based on the complaint given by the elder brother's wife and children, a case was registered in Crime No.73 of 2024 against the Petitioner's wife and his son for the offences under Sec. 448, 143, 294(b), 323 , 506(2) IPC and Sec. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that based on the complaint given by the elder brother's wife and his children, the Respondents 1 to 4 are attempting to detain the son of the petitioner under Act 14 of 1982. The representation of the Petitioner, dtd. 2/2/2024, was not considered. The Petitioner sent the representation to the Respondents 1 to 4 seeking to drop the proposal to detain the son of the petitioner under Act 14 of 1982. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the son of the Petitioner was attacked brutally by the elder brother's wife and children. He is also a Diploma Engineer. While so at the instigation of the daughter-in-law of the elder brother, who is serving as Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Police, the Respondents 2 to 4 are attempting to convert a civil case into criminal case by arraying the son of the petitioner as accused for offence under Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act. Therefore, he seeks Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to drop the proposal to detain the Petitioner's son under Goondas Act.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on instructions of the Respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the Petitioner's son is facing not only one case. He is facing two cases under Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act and one case under Sec. 354 IPC.