Madras High Court
K.K.Ramesh vs The Director General Of Police on 25 April, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.8695 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD)No.8695 of 2011
K.K.Ramesh ... Petitioner
versus
The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai. ... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records pertaining to the impugned letter of the respondent in
Lr.No.042210/Cr.3(1)/2011, dated 02.07.2011, quash the same and
direct the respondent to give compensation of Rs.25 Lakhs to the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Ramesh
Party in person
For Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed as against the letter of the respondent in
Lr.No.042210/Cr.3(1)/2011, dated 02.07.2011, in and by which, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8695 of 2011
representation of the petitioner dated 08.03.2011 seeking
compensation, was rejected by the respondent.
2. The petitioner, party-in-person, submits that he is indulged in
social activities and doing social services to the poor people. He filed
several cases against the Police Officers in Madurai District Court. He
also filed a private complaint against one Sukumar, the then Inspector
of Police, B3 Teppakulam Police Station, Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.1497
of 2003, before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Madurai. When the
case was posted for hearing on 10.12.2003, the Inspector Sukumar
intimidated him to withdraw the case. Since he refused to withdraw the
case, the Inspector Sukumar, with the help of one Vatchala, an offender
in Immoral Traffic offence, foisted a false case against him in Crime
No.833 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354, 506(i) of
IPC and remanded him to prison on the same day.
3. The petitioner further submits that he has also raised certain
objections at the time of remand that the case itself has been foisted for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8695 of 2011
coercing him to withdraw the criminal case pending against the
Inspector of Police in Cr.M.P.No.1497 of 2003. However, he was
confined in prison for 33 days. Thereafter, he filed an application
before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, seeking
transfer of investigation. The learned District and Sessions Judge,
Madurai, by order dated 15.03.2003, transferred the case to CBCID.
However, final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Madurai and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.236 of 2005. During
the trial, P.W.1-Vatchala deposed that she lodged a complaint against
the petitioner only on the compulsion of the Inspector of Police and the
complaint itself was prepared by the Police Officials and she has not
sustained injury. Based on the evidence of P.W.1, he was acquitted in
the criminal case.
4. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that in view of the
case registered against the him, he lost his reputation in the society and
also suffered mental agony. Therefore, he made a representation to the
respondent to provide a compensation of Rs.25 lakhs for the false case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8695 of 2011
registered against him in Cr.No.833 of 2003 and for the illegal
confinement of 33 days in jail.
5. In support of the case, the petitioner has also relied upon a
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1993 SCR (2) SCC 581
(Hilasahi Sehera vs. Orissa Government).
6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent submits that one Vatachala gave a complaint on 10.12.2003
alleging that the petitioner attacked her with hands and also threatened
her with dire consequences. Based on the said complaint, a case in
Crime No.833/2003 was registered against the petitioner for the
offence under Sections 341, 323, 354, 506(i) IPC. Thereafter, she was
referred to Balarengapuram Government Hospital, wherein, she was
admitted as in-patient on 10.12.2003 and discharged on 13.12.2003.
The Medical Officer found contusion injury over her cheek and also
issued a wound certificate. Though the petitioner alleges that at the
instance of one Sukumar, the Inspector of Police, B3 Teppakulam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8695 of 2011
Police Station, the case was registered against him, the case was
registered by one Baskaran, Sub Inspector of Police. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed an application for transfer of investigation and
subsequently, the case was transferred to CBCID for further
investigation. The investigation was also conducted by one
R.Jeganathan, Inspector of Police, CBCID and after the completion of
investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Madurai, against the petitioner for the offence under
Sections 341, 323, 354, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. During the trial, 21
witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution, however,
P.W1-Vatchala turned hostile. Therefore, the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Madurai, on 30.09.2009, acquitted the petitioner, by
extending the benefit of doubt.
7. The learned Government Advocate further submits that the
petitioner lodged a complaint against the family members of Vatchala
on 06.12.2004, based on which, a case was registered in Cr.No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8695 of 2011
1002/2004 on the file of B4 Keeraithurai Police Station as against the
family members of Vatchala for the offence under Sections, 147, 148,
307, 506, 500 and 501 IPC. The said complaint was closed as mistake
of fact. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed a private complaint before
the learned Judicial Magistrate against the family members of Vatchala,
which ended in acquittal. The petitioner, by lodging complaints against
the family members of Vatchala, put her under threat to be a hostile
witness in C.C.No.236 of 2005. Since the complainant Vatchala has
not supported the case of the prosecution in C.C.No.236 of 2005, the
petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal Case registered against him.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the order of
acquittal and he is not entitled for any compensation.
8. This Court considered the rival submissions.
9. On 10.12.2003, one Vatchala lodged a complaint that the
petitioner assaulted her with hands and threatened her with dire
consequences. The said Vatchala was pregnant at the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8695 of 2011
occurrence. Based on the said complaint, a case in Cr.No.833 of 2003
was registered against the petitioner on 10.12.2014. On the same day,
the said Vatchala was referred to Balarengapuram Government
Hospital, wherein, she was admitted as inpatient for three days and she
was discharged from the hospital only on 13.12.2014. A wound
certificate was also issued to Vatchala that she sustained contusion
injury on her cheek. X-ray was also taken on the mandible. On the
petition filed by the petitioner, the case in Crime No.833 of 2003 was
transferred to CBCID and after investigation, a final report was also
filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai. Though the
petitioner alleges that the case was registered at the instance of one
Sukumar, the then Inspector of Police, B3-Theppakulam Police Station,
the case was originally registered by one Baskaran, Sub Inspector of
Police and thereafter, the case was transferred to CBCID and
investigated by one R.Jeganathan, Inspector of Police, CBCID,
Madurai. During the investigation, he examined 21 witnesses. After
the completion of investigation, he filed the final report, which was
also taken on file as C.C.No.236 of 2005 on the file of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8695 of 2011
Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. During the trial, 21 witnesses were
examined on the side of the prosecution and the victim Vatchala turned
hostile. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, on
30.09.2009 acquitted the petitioner by extending the benefit of doubt.
10. Prior to the registration of case in Cr.No.236 of 2005, the
petitioner also lodged a complaint against the family members of
Vatchala, which was registered in Cr.No.1002/2004 on the file of B4
Keerathurai Police Station, which was closed as mistake of fact.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, in Crl.M.P.No.5240 of 2004
against the family members of Vatchala and the same was also ended in
acquittal. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that P.W.1-
Vatchala is a stranger, cannot be accepted. Similarly, this Court is also
not inclined to consider the evidence of Vatchala, who was facing
counter complaint at the instance of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8695 of 2011
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the
writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
25.04.2022
ogy
To
The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.8695 of 2011
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
W.P.(MD)No.8695 of 2011
25.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
