Madras High Court
G.Bhavani vs The Home Secretary on 12 July, 2021
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
and
WMP(MD)Nos.5643 & 18794 of 2017
G.Bhavani : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Home Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Police
(South Zone),
New Natham Road,
Madurai – 2.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Rameshwaram Main Road,
Collectorate (Post),
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District.
5.Mr.Manivannan,
Superintendent of Police,
SP Office, Ramanathapuram.
6.Mr.Vijaya Kumar,
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thiruvadanai TK,
Ramanathapuram District.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
7.The Inspector of Police,
Thondi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
8.Thangam Muniya Samy,
Sub-Inspector of Police,
Ramnad B.S. Town Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
9.The Government General Hospital,
Rep. by its Dean,
Ramanathapuram District.
10.The Additional Director,
CB-CID, No.83, 3rd Cross Street,
Vishalakshipuram, Madurai – 625 014.
11.The Additional Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Rajaji Bhavan, Chennai. : Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of
mandamus
- to direct the 10th respondent to hand over the file in
Cr.No.291 of 2017 which was registered by the Kenikarai
Police Station and Cr.No.111 of 2017 which was registered
by the 7th respondent to the 11th respondent for
investigation.
– to direct the 1st respondent to take suitable departmental
action against the 8th respondent and to place him under
suspension in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex
Court, Arumuga Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu 2011 (6) SCC
405.
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
–
- to direct the 4th respondent immediately to provide
relief amount to the petitioner contemplated under Rule
12(4), Annexure I of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, r/w Amended Act, 2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi,
Standing Counsel for the State
for RR.1 to 4, 7, 9, 10
*****
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a
direction
- to the 10th respondent to hand over the file in Cr.No.
291 of 2017 which was registered by Kenikarai Police
Station and Cr.No.111 of 2017 which was registered by
Thondi Police Station to the 11th respondent for
investigation.
- to the 1st respondent to take suitable departmental
action against the 8th respondent and to place him under
suspension, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Arumuga Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in 2011 (6) SCC 405.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
- to the 4th respondent to immediately provide relief
amount to the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 12(4),
Annexure I of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, r/w Amended Act, 2015.
2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband,
Govindan, was taken by three police personnel from their
house on 13.04.2017 at about 06.30 pm and was shot dead by
the 8th respondent / Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramnad B.S.
Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. It is also
stated that the police personnel took the dead body to the
9th respondent hospital and completed the postmortem without
informing and without obtaining any consent from the
petitioner or her relatives. Her case is that they belong
to Scheduled Caste Community and some of the police
officers, who belong to Backward Caste Community, have
purposely murdered her husband and therefore, she has to be
compensated for the same.
3. Mr.P.Vijendran, learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner's husband, Govindan, was
taken only from the house, however, the respondent police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
have created a story in Cr.No.111 of 2017, as if there was
an encounter. According to him, two FIRs were registered
pertaining to this incident, one in Cr.No.291 of 2017 on
the file of the Kenikarai Police Station and in Cr.No.111
of 2017 on the file of the Thondi Police Station. He
further submitted that the police are proceeding in a
biased manner and therefore, a fair and impartial
investigation has to be conducted and the petitioner and
her daughters have to be compensated for the alleged murder.
4. Mr.S.Ravi, learned Standing Counsel for the State
submitted that the petitioner's husband, Govindan, is an
accused in Cr.No.291 of 2017 on the file of Kenikarai
Police Station, wherein, one Kasinathan was kidnapped and a
sum of Rs.9,00,000/- was snatched away from him. On
11.04.2017 at about 05.00 pm, when the complainant
Kasinathan was proceeding to Ramanathapuram from Keelakarai
in his car bearing registration no.TN-65-AC-9464, along
with his Driver, Dulkarnai, four persons intercepted the
car, assaulted him and robbed the sum of Rs.9,00,000/-,
kidnapped him in their white color Tavera car and threw him
away near Solanthur. Based on this complaint, a special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
team was formed and during the investigation, they found
that the offence was committed with the help of the
complainant's Driver, Dulkarnai and the petitioner's
husband, Govindan and his associates.
5. He further submitted that the special team headed by
one Thangamuniyasamy, Sub-Inspector of Police has arrested
one Chinnaraj on 13.04.2017 and on his information, they
spotted the petitioner's husband, Govindan, the main
accused in a white color Ambassador car bearing
registration no.TAR 9083, proceeding from Thondi to
Thiruvadanai. The special team chased him in a private
Indica car bearing registration no.TN-65-P-6156,
intercepted his vehicle near Saveriyar Nagar, Mela Arumbur,
Thiruvadanai Taluk. The said accused Govindan got down of
the vehicle and assaulted a Grade I Police Constable 1834
Soundarapandian and Sub-Inspector of Police
Thangamuniyasamy with an Aruval. When the accused tried to
attack the Sub-Inspector of Police again, the Sub-Inspector
had opened one round of fire at the accused Govindan, in
which, he sustained injury and fell down. The police have
taken the injured Govindan and the police personnel to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
Government Hospital, Thiruvadanai, where the accused
Govindan was declared brought dead. For this incident, a
case in Cr.No.111 of 2017 was registered on the complaint
of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thangamuniyasamy under
Sections 279, 294(b), 332, 307 IPC r/w Section 176(1-A)
Cr.P.C.
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the
FIR in Cr.No.111 of 2017 on the file of the Thondi Police
Station has been transferred to the CBCID, Ramanathapuram
and re-registered as Cr.No.2 of 2017 and was enquired by
the CBCID. But they are yet to file the final report. Apart
from the enquiry conducted by the CBCID, a judicial enquiry
was also ordered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ramanathapuram, on 14.04.2017, by nominating one
Mr.A.Kannan, then Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Ramanathapuram, in-charge of District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Thiruvadanai. He has examined the witnesses and
filed a report on 06.09.2019 that the police had opened
fire as a self defence as against the petitioner's husband,
deceased Govindan. The learned Standing Counsel has also
produced a list of cases, in which, the petitioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
husband Govindan was arrayed as an accused. Therefore, he
objected for grant of any compensation.
7. As a reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, reported in (2017) 10
SCC 658, submitted that even though the deceased is an
accused, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, he is entitled for compensation. He has also relied
upon the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.359, Public (Law and
Order – A) Department, dated 06.04.2015, which provides for
financial relief to the victims / legal heirs of the
deceased victims, who were tortured and injured by the
police / prison officials and also to the incidents of
death due to police torture, death due to police firing,
rape by police and permanent incapacitation, etc.
8. This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the
rival submissions and also to the materials placed on
record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
9. The petitioner's husband, Govindan, is shown as an
accused in the case in Cr.No.291 of 2017 on the file of the
Kenikarai Police Station. In the said incident, the Driver
of the complainant, Dulkarnai, along with the petitioner's
husband / deceased Govindan and others have committed a
robbery to an extent of Rs.9,00,000/-. The occurrence in
Cr.No.291 of 2017 was taken place on 13.04.2017 and on the
orders of the higher officials, a special team was
constituted headed by the 8th respondent / Sub-Inspector of
Police. The special team has also arrested one Chinnaraj,
accused in the said case. The said Chinnaraj gave
information to the police about the movement of the accused
Govindan. Accordingly, the police went in search of the
accused Govindan, intercepted his Ambassador car bearing
registration no.TAR 9083. But the accused tried to escape
by hitting the car of the police. The special team chased
him and at a particular place at Saveriyar Nagar, the
accused Govindan, who could not move any further with his
car, came out of the car and attacked the police personnel
with an Aruval, in which, a Grade I Police Constable, one
Soundarapandian and the 8th respondent / Sub-Inspector of
Police, Thangamuniyasamy have suffered injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
10. The 8th respondent claims that as a private defense
and in order to prevent further attack, he opened one round
of fire, in which the deceased sustained injury. The police
personnel have also taken the deceased as well as the
injured police to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram
and on the statement of the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Thangamuniyasamy, the case was registered in Cr.No.111 of
2017 for the offence under Sections 279, 294(b), 332, 307
IPC & Section 176 Cr.P.C. The investigation in Cr.No.111 of
2017 was also transferred to the CBCID, Ramanathapuram and
re-numbered as Cr.No.2 of 2017 and pending investigation.
11. Apart from this investigation, a judicial enquiry
was also ordered and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Ramanathapuram, has conducted an enquiry under Section
176(1-A) Cr.P.C. and filed a final report that the police
have opened the fire as a self defense and two police
officials have sustained injury in the said incident.
12. Since the case has already been transferred to the
CBCID, this Court is of the view that there is no necessity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
for ordering for any transfer of investigation to any other
investigation agency after four years. However, since the
CBCID has not completed the investigation and filed the
final report, this Court directs the 10th respondent /
Additional Director, CBCID, to ensure that the
investigation in Cr.No.2 of 2017 is completed and the final
report is filed before the Court concerned within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. A copy of the said final report shall also be
furnished to the petitioner / wife of the deceased
Govindan. If the petitioner is aggrieved over the final
report, it is open to her to file a protest petition before
the Court concerned, in the manner known to law and to
agitate the same, if so advised.
13. Insofar as the second relief is concerned, since
the investigation in Cr.No.2 of 2017 is yet to be
completed, it is open to the 3rd respondent / Deputy
Inspector of Police to initiate appropriate departmental
proceedings on the erring officials depending upon the
outcome of the investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
14. Insofar as the third relief is concerned, this
Court is not inclined to order for any compensation, when
the investigation in Cr.No.2 of 2017 is not completed.
However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, who conducted an
enquiry under Section 176 Cr.P.C has filed a report that
the police had opened the fire only as a self defense. The
learned Standing Counsel has also brought to the knowledge
of this Court that the petitioner's husband Govindan is
involved in 25 cases, of which, two cases are for the
offence under Section 302 IPC, seven cases are for the
offence under Section 307 IPC and three cases are for the
offence under Section 397 IPC, etc.
15. In Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons's case
(supra), referred to by the petitioner's Counsel, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“55. ... But it is important for the Central Government
and the State Governments to realise that persons who suffer
an unnatural death in a prison are also victims—sometimes of
a crime and sometimes of negligence and apathy or both.
There is no reason at all to exclude their next of kin from
receiving compensation only because the victim of an
unnatural death is a criminal. Human rights are not
dependent on the status of a person but are universal in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
nature. Once the issue is looked at from this perspective,
it will be appreciated that merely because a person is
accused of a crime or is the perpetrator of a crime and in
prison custody, that person could nevertheless be a victim
of an unnatural death. Hence, the need to compensate the
next of kin.”
16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is having three daughters and in view of
this incident, her entire family is affected. It appears
that the petitioner has also made a representation to the
first respondent in this regard, but the same did not see
the light of the day. In such view of the matter as well as
the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
petitioner is hereby permitted to submit a fresh
representation to the respondents within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
first respondent shall consider the same and pass
appropriate orders on the representation based on the
available materials and in the light of the Government
Order in G.O.Ms.No.359, Public (Law and Order – A)
Department, dated 06.04.2015, if it is otherwise
applicable, within a period of twelve weeks therefrom.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
17. In fine, this writ petition stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous
petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Index : Yes / No 12.07.2021
gk
To
1.The Home Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Police
(South Zone),
New Natham Road,
Madurai – 2.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Rameshwaram Main Road,
Collectorate (Post),
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Thondi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
6.The Dean,
Government General Hospital,
Ramanathapuram District.
7.The Additional Director,
CB-CID, No.83, 3rd Cross Street,
Vishalakshipuram, Madurai – 625 014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
8.The Additional Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Rajaji Bhavan, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
WP(MD)No.7143 of 2017
12.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
