P R KAVITHA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief:

(2.) The petitioner is a practising Advocate, enrolled with Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. According to her, she was having practice primarily in Salem District as well as before this Court. According to the petitioner, she has been in active practice eversince her enrollment. In discharge of her duties, the petitioner being a professional lawyer, had been taking up certain sensitive and issues concerning interest and welfare of the downtrodden people who were perceived to be the victims of the police highhandedness. In view of her active involvement as a professional lawyer in taking up the issues against the police personnel, particularly in Salem District, the local police of Salem nurtured grudge against the petitioner as they were being repeatedly questioned by her of their highhanded behaviour and illegal action. Therefore, according to the petitioner, in a matter of few days, several false cases were foisted against her at the instigation of the police personnel and FIRs were also lodged. This was done in order to wreack vengeance on the petitioner by sending a strong message that the petitioner would suffer serious consequences of facing criminal cases for questioning their illegitimate activities. According to the petitioner, all the complaints were emanated from close relatives of the police personnel employed in the Salem District. While so, the 3rd respondent has made a recommendation on 18.2009 for opening a history sheet (rowdy) under the provisions of the Police Standing Orders and the second respondent has accepted recommendation and immediately opened history sheet (rowdy) on the ground that the petitioner was addicted to crimes. The relevant provisions of the Police Standing Order under which, the rowdy history sheet was opened against the petitioner, are extracted hereunder:

(3.) Aggrieved by the opening of rowdy history sheet against her, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition, inter alia contending that her constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, had been violated by falsely implicating her in number of criminal cases and lodging FIRs against her in order to make it appear that the petitioner was a repeat offender.