K KANNAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein having seen the inaction on the part of the police after receiving a complaint given by the petitioner herein dated 14.11.2008 addressed to the Inspector of Police, Thirunavalur Police Station, Villupuram District, has come forward with the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking a direction to the respondents herein to register a first information report based on the above said complaint and investigate the same as expeditiously as possible.

(2.) THE contents of the petition are as follows:-a) An extent of 0.17.0 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.500/19 in Ayan Vellore Village, Ulundurpet Taluk, Villupuram District belongs to one Periyayi. She was in possession and enjoyment of the said land. She belongs to Korava community, which is included in the list of a Scheduled Tribe. As Sundaram, Thambusamy, Thiruvengadam, Kolanjiappan and Subramani, who are non-members of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said Periyayi. THE petitioner is the son-in-law of the above said Periyayi. Regarding the said land, she filed a suit in O.S.No.19/2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet. She was also granted an injunction in her favour and the learned Principal District Munsif had also directed the police to give protection by an order dated 12.04.2006 made in E.A.No.165/2006. THE case between the said Periyayi and the above said persons has reached the stage of a second appeal, which is now pending on the file of this court as S.A.No.592/2007. This court (High Court, Chennai) also granted interim injunction in favour of the said Periyayi and made it absolute till the disposal of the second appeal by its order dated 07.12.2007 in M.P.No.1/2007 in S.A.No.592/2007.b) On 14.11.2008 at about 9.00 a.m the petitioner and his father-in-law were engaged in strengthening the bunds of the said land for paddy plantation. Sundaram, Thambusamy and Subramani along with their henchmen Koothan, Palani and Elumalai formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, trespassed into the said lands and abused the petitioner and his father-in-law in filthy language. THEy also threatened the petitioner and his father-in-law with dire consequences, if they failed to vacate the land. When the petitioner and his father-in-law raised protest, the said persons severely bet the father-in-law of the petitioner using a spade and the petitioner using the handle of the spade. THE assailants also humiliated them using the name of the caste of the petitioner and his father-in-law in public view. THE assailants also obliterated the bunds of the land. THEy had also caused intimidation with dire consequences if the petitioner and his father-in-law would again enter the said land. c) After having admitted his father-in-law and he himself having been treated at the government hospital, Ulundurpet, the petitioner went to Thirunavalur police station and lodged a complaint in writing on 14.11.2008 itself. But the Inspector of Police, Thirunavalur police station, who is arrayed as the second respondent herein, after receiving the complaint failed and neglected to register a first information report and investigate the matter. THErefore, the petitioner herein had to send a complaint to the second respondent herein by registered post. THE second respondent herein, even after receiving the complaint, refused to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner. THErefore, the petitioner had to send the complaint in writing to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District (first respondent herein). THE first respondent herein also failed to do his duty. THErefore, the petitioner left with no other option, has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for a direction against the respondents to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 14.11.2008 and investigate the same.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), representing the respondent police, has chosen to make his submissions without even filing a counter affidavit. He has stated that an order can be passed after hearing the submissions made on the side of the petitioner and on the side of the respondents, even without filing a formal counter affidavit.