K VENKATARAMAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition in W. P. No. 11704 of 1998 has been filed for issuance of mandamus directing the investigation in Crime No. 328 of 1998 in the file of Sub-Inspector of Police, the 5th respondent herein, to be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the 6th respondent herein and further direction to the State Government, the first respondent herein to pay a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs to the petitioners. W. P. No. 13470 of 1998 has been filed for writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to entrust the entire commission and omission of crimes relating to murder of Palanivelu and other connected matters to the Central Bureau of Investigation and to maintain public peace without being disturbed by political parties and communal groups in public interest at Chidambaram and in Cuddalore districts.

(2.) SO far as the first prayer in W. P. No. 11704 of 1998 and the prayer in W. P. No. 13470 of 1998 are concerned, during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, investigation of such crime was entrusted to CBCID and thereafter, the trial was held and completed, ending in conviction of some of the accused persons and acquittal of some other accused persons. The first prayer in WP. No. 11704 of 1998 and the prayer in WP. No. 13470 of 1998, are, therefore, not necessary to be dealt with and, W. P. No. 13470 of 1998 is liable to be disposed as infructuous. The only question required to be considered is payment of compensation. The basic allegations, as contained in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition, are as follows:

(3.) 1 Petitioner No. 1 is an Advocate practising in criminal side at Chidambaram Town for a considerable length of time. Petitioner No. 2 is his wife and she is also an Advocate. Petitioner No. 1 had occasion to function as Special Public Prosecutor in two high profile cases, wherein, the accused persons were various police officials of Chidambaram town. One such case is relating to the rape of one lady by the police officials and killing of her husband in the lockup. In the said case, seven police personnel including Inspector of Police were convicted by the trial Court. The other incident relates to murder of one Rajakannu in a police lockup in Kammapuram Police Station coming under the erstwhile South Arcot District. Investigation of the said case was entrusted to CBCID by the High Court. The High Court had directed for payment of compensation to the widow of the victim and also for launching of prosecution against the concerned police officials. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor in the said case. By the date of incident, i. e. 28. 7. 1998, which is the cause of action for filing the present Writ Petition and even at the time of filing the Writ Petition, such criminal case was pending trial. 3. 2 The allegation of the petitioners is to the effect that because of such role of the petitioner No. 1 as a Special Public Prosecutor in two cases, where the accused persons were the police officials, the local police had reasons to be prejudiced against petitioner No. 1. While the matter stood thus, on 9. 7. 98, one Palanivelu, an Office Bearer of M. D. M. K. Political Party was killed in broad daylight. Two brothers, popularly known as "vandayar brothers", high profile activists of the area, were the prime suspects in the said murder case. The incident of killing evoked virulent protest by almost all the political parties. Several politicians had visited Chidambaram towm during those days and many protest processions and meetings were being held. Some vandalism had also occurred and the situation in Chidambaram was very tense. On 15. 7. 1998, the representatives of all the political parties passed a resolution urging the Government to apprehend the culprits and it was also decided to hold an all party meeting at Chidambaram on 28. 7. 1998 to condemn the police inaction which was perceived as reluctance on the part of the police to apprehend the Vandayar brothers. Petitioner No. 1 was the Advocate of the deceased Palanivelu as well as Vandayar brothers on many previous occasions was quite well known fact. On 16. 7. 1998, copy of the resolution of all party meeting, dated 15. 7. 1998 had been handed over to the District Collector. On 28. 7. 1998 in the afternoon, all party meeting was conducted at the junction of North Car Street and East Car Street, which was very close to the house of the petitioners. At about 6. 00 p. m. , while the meeting was going on, lots of noise and protest were being raised against Vandayar brothers. Around 6. 30 p. m. , an unruly mob burnt an effigy of Sreedhar Vandayar and threw it on the car of the petitioner and the mob was attempting to enter inside the house of the petitioner and was raising threatening slogans against petitioner No. 1, apparently because the mob perceived that petitioner No. 1 being a leading criminal lawyer would defend the Vandayar brothers as he had done in the past. The mob broke into the house of the petitioners and ransacked the entire house. At around 6. 30 p. m. , the Petitioner No. 1 had contacted the police over telephone. Subsequently, apprehending danger, the petitioners escaped to another place by jumping over the roof and walls of adjacent houses and they had to hide themselves. However, 88 years old mother of petitioner No. 1, who was not in a position to escape, had to stay behind in the house and subsequently, when the mob entered and ransacked and damaged the articles, the old mother beseeched the mob not to harm her offering a gold ring and thereafter, they brought the house hold articles and furniture on the road outside and lit on fire. Even though, fire brigade people tried to come to the rescue and to prevent the fire from spreading, they were prevented to do so by the mob and some of the firemen were injured. 3. 3 The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that in spite of prior information that such untoward incident may happen as petitioner No. 1 was perceived as defence lawyer of Vandayar brothers, no precautionary measures had been taken by the District Collector and local police and the district administration should not have permitted the holding of the meeting at a busy junction of Chidambaram. It is further asserted that at any rate after the petitioner informed about the imminent danger and attack of the mob around 6. 30 p. m. , no timely help was rendered by the police, thereby permitting the mob to enter inside the house of the petitioners and ransack and damage the movable properties. The petitioner has claimed that he had sustained a huge loss and had to spend about Rs. 5 lakh for repairs to his house and therefore, respondent No. 1 should pay the compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs as the mob could take advantage of the culpable inaction of the police officials in controlling the mob and taking adequate safety measure.