Madras High Court
R.Indira vs The Director General Of Police And on 19 April, 2022
W.A(MD)No.355 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD)No. 355 of 2022
and C.M.P.(MD) No. 3534 of 2022
R.Indira .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Director General of Police and
Head of Police Force of Tamil Nadu,
No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
2.The Inspector General of Police,
South Zone,
Reserve Line,
Race Course Colony,
Madurai - 625 002.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Alagarkoil Road,
Madurai - 625 002.
4.The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime),
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Alagarkoil Road,
Madurai-625 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.A(MD)No.355 of 2022
5.K.P.Manikumar,
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
C.3, S.S.Colony (Crime) Police Station,
S.S.Colony,
Madurai-625016.
6.Vimala,
Gr.I Constable,
C.3, S.S.Colony (Crime) Police Station,
S.S.Colony,
Madurai-625016.
7.Kalaivani
(Formerly Inspector of Police,
C.3, S.S.Colony (Crime)PS, Madurai)
Presently,
Inspector of Police,
Abiramam Police Station,
Abiramam, Kamuthi Road,
Ramanathapuram District-623 601. .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 03.02.2022 made in W.P.(MD) No. 15383 of
2021.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Rajaguru
For Respondents : Mr.S.R.S.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
R1 to R4
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 03
February 2022 recorded on W.P(MD) No.15383 of 2021. This appeal
is by the unsuccessful original writ petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.355 of 2022
2. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner has made
serious grievance that, the petitioner who is a lady was arrested
after sunset, which is against the settled position of law and
therefore disciplinary proceedings as asked for by the writ petitioner
ought to have been ordered by learned Single Judge. It is
submitted that this appeal be entertained.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant / original writ
petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision
of this Court dated 18 October 2019 recorded on W.P(MD) No.
5508 of 2019. Reference is also made to para:14 of the said
order which reads as under:-
“14.He further submitted that
insofar as the violation of the
procedures contemplated under Section
46(4) of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it
prohibits the arrest of woman after
sunset, except some exceptional
circumstances. Only on receiving call
from '100', the police officials had
gone to the place of occurrence and
found that the arrest of the petitioner
is necessary to avoid further incidents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.355 of 2022
affecting the peace and tranquility, the
arrest was effected. In fact, on the
representation received from the
petitioner, the enquiry was ordered in
C.No. 138/PG/DCP(L&O)/MC/2019 and the
Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Thilagarthidal issued summon to the
police officials. The petitioner was
also appeared on 23.03.2019 and the
enquiry is pending. Therefore, the writ
petition has been filed only to escape
from the clutches of law and also
assaulting the law enforcing officials
while they were on duty and hence, the
present writ petition has to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader has supported
the order passed by learned Single Judge by pointing out the
fact that, in the present case, the police had not gone to the
residence of petitioner but it is the persons from whom the
petitioner had borrowed money brought her to the police
station and police had acted strictly in accordance with law
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.355 of 2022
with due intimation to the close family member, which in this
case is the husband of the writ petitioner – lady. It is
submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record this Court
finds that, the learned Single Judge has, on the basis of the
pleadings - the application by police seeking remand of the
petitioner (as an accused), the order passed by the Magistrate
on the said remand application and to the facts and
circumstances found that, this is not a case where disciplinary
proceedings can be ordered at the instance of the accused,
that too in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. We have considered the reasons recorded
by learned Single Judge and we find that, neither the reasons
nor the final conclusion can be said to be erroneous in any
manner. Therefore this appeal needs to be dismissed. So far
reliance placed by learned advocate for the appellant / writ
petitioner on the order of this Court (as referred above) is
concerned, the said decision was entirely on different facts and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.355 of 2022
it would not help the petitioner.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this writ appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
would not survive.
(P.U., J) (R.V., J)
19.04.2022
Index : No
pkn/4
To:-
1.The Director General of Police and
Head of Police Force of Tamil Nadu,
No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
2.The Inspector General of Police,
South Zone,
Reserve Line,
Race Course Colony,
Madurai - 625 002.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Alagarkoil Road,
Madurai - 625 002.
4.The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime),
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Alagarkoil Road,
Madurai-625 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.355 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
pkn
W.A(MD)No.355 of 2022
19.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
