Madras High Court
R.Alagappan vs S.Ramesh on 2 February, 2022
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
W.A.No.3087 of 2019
R.Alagappan .. Appellant
Vs.
1. S.Ramesh
2. The Chairman
Police Complaints Authority for
Puducherry Union Territory
Chief Secretariat
Puducherry.
3. The Director General of Police
Police Head Quarters
Puducherry
Puducherry Union Territory.
4. The Inspector of Police
Policing of Police
SSP C & I Complex
Puducherry.
___________
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
5. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Home Secretary
St. George Fort
Chennai.
6. The Director General of Police
DGP Office
Mylapore, Chennai. .. Respondents
[RR 5 & 6 suo motu impleaded
vide order dated 16.09.2019]
W.A.No.3230 of 2019
S.Ramesh .. Appellant in
Vs.
1. The Chairman
Police Complaints Authority for
Puducherry Union Territory
Chief Secretariat
Puducherry.
2. The Director General of Police
Police Head Quarters
Puducherry
Puducherry Union Territory.
3. The Inspector of Police
Policing of Police
SSP C & I Complex
Puducherry.
4. Union of India
rep. by the Chief Secretary
Government of Union Territory of Puducherry
Puducherry.
___________
Page 2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
5. Additional Secretary Home / Secretary-cum-Convener
Police Complaints Authority
Home Department
Government of Union Territory of Puducherry
Puducherry.
[Cause title accepted vide order dated
09.09.2019 in CMP No.19328 of 2019]
W.A.No.169 of 2020
The Chairman
Police Complaint Authority for
Puducherry Union Territory
Chief Secretariat
Puducherry. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. S.Ramesh
2. The Director General of Police
Police Headquarters
Puducherry Union Territory
Puducherry.
3. The Inspector of Police
Policing of Police
SSP & C & I Complex
Puducherry.
4. Union of India
rep. by Chief Secretary
Government of Puducherry. .. Respondents
[R4 impleaded vide order dated 18.03.2020
made in CMP No.6479 of 2020]
___________
Page 3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 30.07.2019 made in W.P.No.21587 of 2019.
For the Appellants : No appearance
(WA No.3087/19 & 3230/19)
Mrs.N.Mala
Govt. Pleader (Puducherry)
For the Respondents : W.A.No.3087 of 2019
Mr.V.Balamurugane
Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)
for respondents 2 to 4
Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
for respondent 5
Mr.N.Damodharan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
for respondent 6
W.A.No.3230 of 2019
Mrs.N.Mala
Govt. Pleader (Puducherry)
for respondents 1, 4 & 5
Mr.V.Balamurugane
Addl. Public Prosecutor
for respondents 2 & 3
___________
Page 4 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
W.A.No.169 of 2020
Mr.S.Ramesh - Respondent-1
Party-in-Person
Mr.V.Balamurugane
Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)
for respondents 2 & 3
Mrs.N.Mala
Govt. Pleader (Puducherry)
for respondent-4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
These writ appeals have been filed challenging the order dated
30.07.2019 made in the writ petition, which was disposed of with
certain observations and directions.
2. These appeals have been preferred challenging the order
made in the writ petition filed by the appellant in W.A.No.3230 of
2019, wherein a direction was sought for the implementation of the
order passed by the Police Complaints Authority, Puducherry on
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
22.05.2019. The prayer made therein was not accepted by the
Court. Rather, referring to the jurisdiction conferred on the Police
Complaints Authority, appropriate observations in reference to its
jurisdiction, pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others
reported in [(2006) 8 SCC 1], were given.
3. The appellant in W.A.No.3230 of 2019, appearing in-person
submits that the writ petition seeking a direction for compliance of
the order passed by the Police Complaints Authority ought to have
been allowed. It is taking into account the fact that the authority
has considered the issue threadbare, while issuing an order for a
fresh investigation through an officer other than the one who dealt
with the investigation and directing a fresh investigation. It is by
appreciating the material produced before it in reference to the case
pertaining to land grabbing.
4. The appellant-in-person further submits that the learned
Single Judge has not issued directions as sought in the writ petition.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
Rather, made a comment on the jurisdiction to be exercised by the
Police Complaints Authority, without taking note of the letter dated
23.03.2010 issued by the Government of India, pursuant to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh supra,
which provides for the power and function of the Police Complaints
Authority. Accordingly, he submits that the direction of the Police
Complaints Authority to make a fresh investigation through the
officer other than the one who has already investigated the case is
appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case and that
when a direction to lodge an FIR can also be given by the Police
Complaints Authority, there was no reason for the learned Single
Judge to deny for a direction for the implementation of the order
passed by the Police Complaints Authority.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Police Complaints
Authority, supporting the arguments of the appellant-in-person,
submits that the direction given by the Police Complaints Authority
is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case and that
the learned Single Judge could have given direction as sought in the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
writ petition. As far as the Union Territory of Puducherry and the
Police Complaints Authority are concerned, they are not challenging
the outcome of the writ petition, but only the observations made by
the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the order.
Thus, a prayer is made to delete the observations made in
paragraphs 15 and 16 of the order.
6. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of
both sides.
7. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner-appellant in-
person seeking a direction for compliance of the order passed by the
Police Complaints Authority on 22.05.2019 in the following terms:
"10. Hence, in these circumstances, we direct the
Director General of Police, Pondicherry, to order for a
fresh investigation by deputing an Inspector of Police who
has not already dealt with this matter and appropriately
take a decision in this matter as per law and, that too,
adhering to the well-known case of Lalitha Kumari Vs.
Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2013 (6) CTC
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
353) of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the light of the
documents and report compliance within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order."
8. The direction sought by the writ petitioner was not accepted
by the learned Single Judge, rather it was found to be inappropriate,
considering the jurisdiction vested with the Police Complaints
Authority, pursuant to the judgment in the case of Prakash Singh
supra. The learned Single Judge made a reference to sub-para (6) of
the judgment in Prakash Singh case setting out the jurisdiction
conferred on the Police Complaints Authority, which reads as under:
"6. There shall be a Police Complaints Authority at
the district level to look into complaints against police
officers of
and up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Similarly, there should be another Police Complaints
Authority at the State level to look into complaints against
officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above.
The district level Authority may be headed by a retired
District Judge while the State level Authority may be
headed by a retired Judge of the High Court/Supreme
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
Court. The head of the State level Complaints Authority
shall be chosen by the State Government out of a panel of
names proposed by the Chief Justice; the head of the
district level Complaints Authority may also be chosen out
of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice or a
Judge of the High Court nominated by him. These
Authorities may be assisted by three to five members
depending upon the volume of complaints in different
States/districts, and they shall be selected by the State
Government from a panel prepared by the State Human
Rights Commission/Lok Ayukta/State Public Service
Commission. The panel may include members from
amongst retired civil servants, police officers or officers
from any other department, or from the civil society. They
would work whole time for the Authority and would have to
be suitably remunerated for the services rendered by them.
The Authority may also need the services of regular staff to
conduct field inquiries. For this purpose, they may utilize
the services of retired investigators from the CID,
Intelligence, Vigilance or any other organization. The State
level Complaints Authority would take cognizance of only
allegations of serious misconduct by the police personnel,
which would include incidents involving death, grievous
hurt or rape in police custody. The district level Complaints
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
Authority would, apart from above cases, may also inquire
into allegations of extortion, land/house grabbing or any
incident involving serious abuse of authority. The
recommendations of the Complaints Authority, both at the
district and State levels, for any action, departmental or
criminal, against a delinquent police officer shall be
binding on the concerned authority".
9. The paragraph quoted above clearly demonstrates the
jurisdiction conferred on the Police Complaints Authority. If the
background of the judgment in the case of Prakash Singh supra is
taken into consideration, it was in reference to the serious
complaints against the police officers involving themselves in the
commission of crime like land grabbing and many other related
issues, apart from the cases of custodial death. The Apex Court,
thus, gave a direction to constitute the Police Complaints Authority
to examine the complaints against the police officer for appropriate
directions. It can issue an order to take up the matter against the
delinquent police officer not only departmentally, but also for
lodging FIR. Such lodging of FIR on the direction of the Police
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
Complaints Authority is wholly in regard to the act of the police
officer only if he has involved in the crime either in the form of
custodial death or other crime. The power and authority of the
Police Complaints Authority is limited in reference to the conduct of
the police officer and not for the issuance of a general direction.
10. The learned Single Judge was thus justified in holding that
the Police Complaints Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in
passing the order sought to be complied with. In paragraphs 15 and
16 of the order, learned Single Judge had rightly observed about the
jurisdiction of the Police Complaints Authority which cannot be akin
to the authority of the Court exercising its power under Code of
Criminal Procedure. The learned Single Judge has minutely
examined even the consequences of passing such orders by the
Police Complaints Authority beyond the jurisdiction, which may give
rise to conflicting direction by the competent Court under Cr.P.C.
and by the Police Complaints Authority.
11. In the light of the above, learned counsel appearing for
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
the Police Complaints Authority could realise the reason for making
such observations in paragraphs 15 and 16, which is to avoid
unnecessary litigation in the form of a writ petition seeking a
direction for compliance of the order passed by the Police
Complaints Authority. Rather, the Police Complaints Authority is
required to manage the affairs within the four corners of the
jurisdiction given to it pursuant to the judgment in the case of
Prakash Singh supra.
12. In view of the above, we do not find any error or illegality
in the order challenged before us nor the observations made
regarding the exercise of jurisdiction by the Police Complaints
Authority. Thus, while dismissing the appeals, we confirm the
direction issued by the learned Single Judge regarding the
jurisdiction of Police Complaints Authority that they should not take
up the issue beyond the jurisdiction pursuant to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh supra and the letter
dated 23.03.2010 issued by the Government of India. The Police
Complaints Authority would be expected to exercise its jurisdiction
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
only within the four corners of the direction issued by the Supreme
Court in the case of Prakash Singh supra and in terms of the letter
dated 23.03.2010 issued by the Government of India. Accordingly,
these writ appeals are dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP Nos.1779 of
2021, 20442 of 2019, 12466 and 2416 of 2020 are also dismissed.
(M.N.B., ACJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
02.02.2022
Index : Yes/No
kpl/drm
To:
1. The Chairman
Police Complaints Authority for
Puducherry Union Territory
Chief Secretariat
Puducherry.
2. The Director General of Police
Police Head Quarters
Puducherry
Puducherry Union Territory.
3. The Inspector of Police
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
Policing of Police
SSP C & I Complex
Puducherry.
4. The Home Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu
St. George Fort
Chennai.
5. The Director General of Police
DGP Office
Mylapore, Chennai.
6. Additional Secretary Home / Secretary-cum-Convener
Police Complaints Authority
Home Department
Government of Union Territory of Puducherry
Puducherry.
7. The Chief Secretary
Government of Union Territory of Puducherry
Puducherry.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 & 169 of 2020
M.N.BHANDARI, ACJ
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
(kpl)
W.A.Nos.3087, 3230 of 2019 &
169 of 2020
02.02.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
