Madras High Court

P.Gurusamy Kudumban vs The High Court Of Madras on 22 July, 2021

W.P.(MD) SR. No.27934 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 22.07.2021

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

W.P.(MD) SR. No.27934 of 2021

P.Gurusamy Kudumban .. Petitioner

1. The High Court of Madras,
Rep by its Registrar General,
High Court Campus,
Chennai - 600 104.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate,
Addl. Mahila Court (on 12.10.2020),
District Court Campus,
Madurai - 625 020.

3. The Director General of Police,
No.4, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

4. The Superintendent of Police,

__________
Page 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) SR. No.27934 of 2021

Madurai Rural District,
Madurai - 625 007.

5. The Inspector of Police,
Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station,
Nagamalai Pudukottai - 625 019.
Madurai Rural District.
In Crime No.2293/2020.

6. The State Information Commission,
Rep. by its Chief Information Commissioner,
No.2, Thiyagaraya Salai, (Near Aalai Amman Koil),
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.

7. Tmt.Grace Sobia Boi,
Inspector of Police, (in charge on 11.10.2020),
Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station,
Madurai Rural District.

8. Mr.Periyakaruppan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to take
appropriate legal actions against the then incumbent judicial officer of
Respondent No.2 for authorising the petitioner's detention in a case in
Crime No.2293/2020 on the file of the fifth respondent police by violating
the dictum of the Apex Court in Arneshkumar vs. State of Bihar reported in
(2014) 8 SCC 273 and to direct the third respondent to take appropriate
legal actions against the seventh respondent for intentionally arresting the
petitioner on 11.10.2020 at midnight during corona virus COVID 19
lockdown and mechanically reproduced the case diary all or most of the
reasons contained in Section 41 of Cr.P.C and obtained the order of

__________
Page 2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD) SR. No.27934 of 2021

detention from the second respondent for doing favour to the 8th respondent
and to pray this Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the seventh
respondent for wilfully violating and disobeying the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Arneshkumar vs. State of Bihar reported in
(2014) 8 SCC 273 by considering the petitioner's written representation
dated 19.03.2021 within a time limit fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Kannan

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

We have heard Mr.A.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner.

2. This matter has been listed under the caption 'for maintainability'.

The prayer sought for by the writ petitioner is for issuing a Writ of

Mandamus to the first respondent, who is the High Court of Judicature at

Madras, represented by the Registrar General, to take action against the

second respondent, who is the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court,

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) SR. No.27934 of 2021

Madurai, for authorizing his detention in Crime No. 2293 of 2020, on the

file of the fifth respondent-Police by violating the dictum of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and

to direct the Director General of Police, the third respondent, to take

appropriate legal action against the seventh respondent, who is the Inspector

of Police, in charge on 11.10.2020 of the Nagamalai Pudukottai Police

Station, for intentionally arresting the petitioner on 11.10.2020 at the

midnight, when the COVID-19 lock-down was in force and mechanically

reproduced the case diary all or almost for the reasons contained in Section

41 Cr.P.C., and obtained the detention from the second respondent Court,

with the view to favour the eighth respondent, who is the private party and

to initiate contempt proceedings against the seventh respondent-Inspector of

Police by the High Court for wilfully violating the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (cited supra).

3. Though, all that the petitioner seeks in this writ petition is firstly,

to state that the seventh respondent-Inspector of Police mechanically

registered an FIR against the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner would state

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) SR. No.27934 of 2021

that the remand report was prepared ignoring all canons of law and when

the petitioner was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court,

without following proper procedure, he has remanded and authorized and

consequently, seeks for a direction to the Director General of Police, to

initiate disciplinary action against the seventh respondent. Simultaneously,

the High Court to initiate contempt proceedings based upon the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar. The order of remand passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate is a judicial order and the said order has

worked itself out.

4. It is not clear as to the stage of the criminal case. The petitioner

alleges certain mala fide against the seventh respondent. He alleges

collusion between the respondents 7 and 8. All these issues cannot be

adjudicated in a writ petition in the manner sought for by the petitioner. If

the petitioner is of the view that he has been wrongfully arrested,

wrongfully remanded, and a false case has been registered, there are several

remedies open to the petitioner, which, the petitioner is to be aware or seek

proper legal advice from the appropriate

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) SR. No.27934 of 2021

5. Therefore, we are of the view that the writ petition as couched is

not maintainable and accordingly, we sustain the objection of the Registry

and consequently, the writ petition is held to be not maintainable.

6. We make it clear that these observations in no manner hamper the

petitioner's rights and it is well open to the petitioner to avail all other

remedies available to him under the law. Accordingly, this Writ Petition

stands rejected at S.R.Stage itself. No costs.

                                                                             (T.S.S.,J.)      (S.A.I.,J.)
                                                                                      22.07.2021
                     Index               : Yes/No
                     Internet            : Yes/No
                     pkn

                     Note:
                     1. In view of the present lock down
                     owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web

copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD) SR. No.27934 of 2021

To:

1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Addl. Mahila Court (on 12.10.2020), District Court Campus, Madurai - 625 020.

3. The Director General of Police, No.4, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Rural District, Madurai - 625 007.

5. The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Nagamalai Pudukottai - 625 019.

Madurai Rural District.

In Crime No.2293/2020.

6. The Chief Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, No.2, Thiyagaraya Salai, (Near Aalai Amman Koil), Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.

__________