Madras High Court
M.Asilar vs The Chief Secretary To The ... on 1 October, 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
WP(MD)No. 22630 of 2017
M.Asilar .: Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Secretary to the Government,
Secretariat, Chennai-09.
2.The Secretary to the Government,
Home Department,
Secretariate,
Chennai-09.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
D.P.O. Nagercoil Post,
Kanyakumari District.
4.Sai Saran Thejasvi,
Assistant Superintendent of Police,
Colachel Sub Division,
Colachel & Post,
Kanyakumari District.
5.Devaraj
A.S.P Writer,
Colachel Police Sub Division,
Colachel & Post,
Kanyakumari District.
6.Jinnah Beer Muhammed,
Sub Inspector of Police,
Eraniel Police Station,
Eraniel, Neyyoor & Post,
Kanyakumari District.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.Alex,
Head Constable,
District Superintendent of Police, Special Branch
Eraniel Police Station,
Eraniel,
Neyyoor & Post,
Kanyakumari District.
8.The Director General of Police,
Chennai.
9.Maria Sebastian : Respondents
PRAYER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents 1 and 2 herein to award a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as
compensation to the petitioner taking into consideration of the petitioner
representation, dated 10.08.2017, as expeditiously as possible within the
time stipulated by this court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy
For R1 to R8 : Mr.R.M.Ambu Nithi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For 8th Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to award a sum of Rs.
30,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner taking into consideration of
the petitioner's representation, dated 10.08.2017, as expeditiously as
possible within the time stipulated by this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.(i)The case of the petitioner is that the property to an extent of 30 cents
situated in S.No.871/2008, which originally belongs to one John Selasteen
Charles. In the year 2013, he approached the petitioner for leasing out the same
for lease amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and it was registered on 20.11.2013, at Sub
Registrar Officer, Eraniel. Later, he approached the petitioner with an intention
to sell the above mentioned property. The petitioner and his wife made
arrangements for purchasing the land and also, purchased the same for Rs.15
lakhs by registered sale deed, dated 18.01.2016. That amount was settled by
taking bank loan and hand loan from the relatives. After purchasing the land,
patta was issued in the name of the petitioner's wife. Later, out of 30 cents, 5
cents were sold by his wife to meet out the medical expenses of the petitioner's
mother. Knowing the aspect of increased value of the property, the said Maria
Sebastian and John Selasteen Charles started to disturb and make trouble.
(ii)Son of John Selasteen Charles, namely, Maria Sebastian, lodged a
complaint before the District Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, which
was forwarded to Eraniel Police Station in R.Ref./P2/S.P//2145/2017. It was
enquired by the Inspector of Police, Eraniel, on 18.07.2017 and later, it came to
be closed on the same day, since the complainant has not produced any
document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(iii) Later, on 07.08.2017, the 5th respondent called the petitioner through
mobile phone and asked him to appear for an enquiry. On that date, he appeared
before the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Colachel. There, he was
threatened and forced to execute a release or re-sale deed in favour of the above
said Maria Sebastian. He was criminally intimidated through force and
pressure. They obtained his signature in white paper and let him out. Later, he
made a request for supplying the C.C.T.V Camera footage through RTI Act, on
10.08.2017. It was replied that there was no such C.C.T.V footage and the same
got damaged or repaired. So, he sent a notice under Section 80 C.P.C, which
was also received by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Colachel and by
the Sub Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station and they also gave reply on
23.08.2017 & 26.08.2017. It is also seen that Maria Sebastian filed a suit before
the learned Principal Subordinate Court in O.S.No.266 of 2017 and the same
is pending. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court with the above Writ
Petition.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the official respondents
and on going through the materials available on record as well as from the
records produced by the Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, it came to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
know that there was a dispute between the petitioner and one Maria Sebastian,
who is the son of the original seller of the property with regard to the property
in favour of the wife of the petitioner. A copy of the sale deed is also available
in the copy of the records, produced by the Inspector of Police, Eraniel,
wherein, we will find that the property was sold for Rs.4,25,102/- on
18.01.2016. What had happened to the seller, is not clear on record. But, it
appears that the wife of the seller started to make trouble and her son lodged
a complaint before the Eraniel Police, on the first occasion, viz., on 20.07.2017
and it came to be closed since he did not co-operate and produce the relevant
documents as it has also been mentioned that the wife of the petitioner is in
enjoyment of the property after purchasing the same. It also came to know that
the document was not executed by John Selasteen Charles, under pressure,
force or coercion and advise was given to her to seek appropriate relief before
the Civil Court.
4.Later, a complaint was given by him on 08.08.2017, before the
Assistant Superintendent of Police, Colachel, Sub Division, Eraniel, wherein,
this Court finds endorsement to call the petitioner and counter petitioner for
enquiry. Now, according to the petitioner, much trouble was made by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Assistant Superintendent of Police, Colachel, on 08.08.2017, when he appeared
for the enquiry. As mentioned earlier, he was criminally intimated and signature
was obtained in white paper and then he was let out.
5.A reading of the alleged statements given by the petitioner shows that
during the course of enquiry, he admitted that he agreed to sell the property to
him and on that ground, the total price was estimated as Rs.14,000,00/- and he
agreed to pay the amount on 10.09.2017 and on that date, after receiving the
price, he undertakes to execute a sale deed. So, according to him, the police has
no role to play in the entire transaction. It is absolutely civil in nature. So, on
that ground, he seeks compensation.
6.In the counter, it is stated that there was a compromise between the
parties, in pursuance of which, the above said undertaken was given by the
petitioner and there was no coercion, threat or intimidation, but, a glaring, catch
the point of the case is at para 11, wherein it has been stated that during the
course of enquiry, it was found that the property was given only as security for
loan. Paragraph 12 says that the possession and enjoyment of the property was
in the hands of Maria Sebastian.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.Whether such a finding or observation can be made by the Police
during enquiry is a matter of concern and this sort of findings can be recorded
only by a competent Civil Court after appreciating the evidence on record.
Again and again, it has been repeatedly held by the several Court that in case of
civil dispute, Police has absolutely, no role to play, even a caution has been
expressed by PSO 592 (b).
8.Even in the earlier occasion, when a similar issue came up before this
Court, this Court directed the Director General of Police, Chennai, to issue a
circular with regard to the procedure to be adopted by the Police Officials while
entertaining civil dispute. The judgment reported in M.Balamurugan Vs the
Superintendent of Police, Trichy and Another in Crl.OP(MD)Nos.6493 of
2018 & 17119 of 2017. But, it appears that so far, no such circular, has been
issued and it appears that it is the main reason for this sort of occurrences.
9.So, the Director General of Police, Chennai is suo-motu impleaded as
necessary party in this petition. Similarly, the complainant namely, Maria
Sebastian S/o.John Sebastian Charles, Fathima Street, Madathattuvilai,
Villukurichi Post, Kanyakumari District is suo-motu impleaded as necessary
party in this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10 For further direction, let the learned Additional Public Prosecutor get
instructions with regard to the development and inform this Court on
16.08.2021.
11.In pursuance of the order of this court, dated 19.07.2021, further order
is passed. On 09.01.2021, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that in pursuance of the passed by this court in Crl.OP Nos.12170 and 11567 of
2008, direction was issued to the Investigating Officer regarding the procedures
to be followed, while entertaining complaint involved in civil dispute.
Similarly, in pursuance of the order passed by this court in Crl.OP(MD)Nos.
6493 of 2018 and 17119 of 2017, dated, 19.07.2018, G.O.Ms.No.1580, Home
(POL.VIII) Department, dated 24.11.2008 and a Circular Memorandum in Rc
No.226313/Crime.4(3)/2013 were issued. So the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submitted that all the directions that have been issued by this court
have been complied with by issuing the above said G.Os. The above said
submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was placed on
record.
12.Now even though, the petitioner has sought for a larger relief of
awarding compensation, considering the fact that unless enquiry
against the erring officials by fixing their responsibility, the compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cannot be assessed and ordered in this petition. So, the petitioner can work his
remedy in the civil court, in so far as the compensation for the mental agony,
harmony etc. In so far as the second relief with regard to the taking of the
departmental action, I am of the considered view that it is the fittest case, which
the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District may be directed to initiate
departmental proceedings against the erring police officials, who were involved
in the enquiry process.
13.In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:-
(i)The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District is directed to initiate
disciplinary action against the police officials,
who are involved in the enquiry process; and
(ii)The petitioner is at liberty to work out
his remedy through civil proceedings, in the
manner known to law.
14.With the above said direction and liberty this writ petition shall
stand disposed of. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
01.10.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
Note:
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.
To,
1.The Chief Secretary to the Government,
Secretariat,
Chennai-09.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Secretary to the Government,
Home Department,
Secretariate,
Chennai-09.
3.The Director General of Police,
Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
D.P.O. Nagercoil Post,
Kanyakumari District.
5.The Assistant Superintendent of Police,
Colachel Sub Division,
Colachel & Post,
Kanyakumari District.
6.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Eraniel Police Station,
Eraniel, Neyyoor & Post,
Kanyakumari District.
7.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
G.ILANGOVAN. J.
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.22630 of 2017
01.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
