A NARAYANASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner and to direct the second respondent to depute an independent police officer to register a case based on the petitioner's complaint dated 15. 01. 2007, and investigate the same as per law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this petition as stood exposited from the records and from the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner could be summarised thus: It so happened that there was some heap of sand in front of the house of the petitioner on 11. 01. 2007. THEreupon, the police officials namely, R. 4 the Sub Inspector of Police and R. 5 the Head Constable, who were on rounds, took exception to it and called upon the petitioner herein to remove it immediately, for which the petitioner has given a reply to the effect that his daughter being a Civil Engineer could come and remove it. Being not satisfied with such a reply, R. 4 and R. 5 manhandled the petitioner and his son Sudhakar and thereby caused injuries to them. Over and above that, the police also went to the extent of registering a case in Cr. No. 14 of 2007 as against both of them for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (B), 353 and 506 (ii) I. P. C and the police took them into custody and produced before the learned Magistrate concerned before whom they also complained about the atrocities perpetrated by the police. But, they wee remanded and subsequently released on bail. THE petitioner's daughter Parimala in the mean while lodged a complaint with the second respondent on 15. 01. 2007 to register a case and investigate into the matter as against the police officials. But, it has not seen the light of the day. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was no response at all for that complaint and that alone necessitate the petitioner to file this petition.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that earlier the Inspector of Police concerned looked into the matter and arrived at the conclusion that it is a false complaint dated 15. 01. 2007, lodged by the said Parimala, for which the learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that without examining the petitioner and his witnesses, how it will lie in the mouth of the police to say that the police enquired into that complaint and referred the matter as false.