Madras High Court
M.Senthil Kumar vs K.Saravanan on 4 November, 2022
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.11.2022
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2022
and
C.M.P.Nos.8641 & 8465 of 2022
M.Senthil Kumar
S/o.M.Muthuvel ... Appellant in Cont.A.No.3/2022
K.Murugesan
The Inspector of Police,
Thammampatti Police Station,
Salem District. ... Appellant in Cont.A.No.4/2022
Vs.
1.K.Saravanan
S/o.Kandasamy ... R1 in both appeals
2.K.Murugesan
Inspector of Police,
Thammampatti Police Station,
Salem District. ... R2 in Cont.A.No.3/2022
Contempt Appeals filed u/s.19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, against the order passed by this Court dated 12.04.2022 made in
Contempt Petition No.498 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.12432 of 2021.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2022
For Appellants : Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal
[in both appeals]
For Respondents : Mr.N.Manoharan [R1]
[in both appeals] Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor [R2]
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Delivered by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]
For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the names of the
persons involved in this case.
2. One Saravanan married Malar some ten years back and on account
of marital discord, they got estranged. Saravanan was residing within the
jurisdiction of Thammampatti Police Station and Malar was residing in her
natal home within the jurisdiction of Thalaivasal Police Station. It is alleged
that on 15.10.2018, Malar and her relatives barged into the house of
Saravanan and assaulted him. In this connection, on a complaint given by
Saravanan, a case in Thammampatti P.S.Crime No.203 of 2018 was
registered on 20.10.2018 for the offences u/s.147, 148, 294(b), 324, 341 and
506(ii) IPC against Malar and nine others. It is seen that on a complaint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2022
given by Malar, a case in Thalaivasal P.S. Crime No.192 of 2021 was
registered on 13.04.2021 for the offences u/s.420, 421, 465, 468 and 471
IPC against Saravanan and four others. It appears that investigation in
Thammampatti P.S.Crime No.203 of 2018 was conducted by one Vijaya
Kumar, Inspector of Police and the said case was closed as 'mistake of fact'
on 15.12.2018. Entries were promptly made in the First Information Report
index as well in CCTNS portal. However, the RCS notice for closing the
First Information Report was neither served on Saravanan [de facto
complainant] nor was it filed in the jurisdictional Court.
3. Saravanan filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.12432 of 2021 in this
Court u/s.482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information Report in
Thalaivasal P.S.Crime No.192 of 2021. In the said petition, Malar was
shown as second respondent. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order
dated 19.07.2021, quashed the First Information Report in Thalaivasal
P.S.Crime No.192 of 2021 and issued a direction to the Inspector of Police,
Thammampatti Police Station, to complete the investigation in
Thammampatti P.S. Crime No.203 of 2018 and lay a charge sheet on or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2022
before 24.09.2021. Though, the Thammampatti Police was not a party in
Crl.O.P.No.12432 of 2021, a copy of the order was sent to them and it was
received by them on 05.08.2021.
4. Alleging non-compliance with the order dated 19.07.2021 in
Crl.O.P.No.12432 of 2021, Saravanan initiated contempt proceedings in
Cont.P.No.498 of 2022 against Murugesan, the Inspector of Police,
Thammampatti Police Station. Statutory notice was served on Murugesan,
after which, he entered appearance and filed his affidavit and contended that
he joined in the Thammampatti Police Station only on 08.08.2021 and
therefore, he was not aware of the events that took place prior to that. When
this was brought to the knowledge of the learned single Judge, notice was
issued to Senthilkumar, who worked in Thammampatti Police Station from
11.03.2021 to 08.08.2021. Senthilkumar also entered appearance and filed
his affidavit. Both of them [Murugesan and Senthilkumar] though
apologised to the learned single Judge for not complying with the order
dated 19.07.2021, contended inter alia that the investigation in
Thammampatti P.S. Crime No.203 of 2018 was completed as early as on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2022
15.12.2018. This explanation was not found satisfactory and therefore, the
learned single Judge, by order dated 12.04.2022, in Cont.P.No.498 of 2022
has punished Senthilkumar and Murugesan as under :
"i. The Commissioner of Police, Salem is directed to take
departmental action against both Mr.Senthilkumar, the then Inspector
of Police, Thammampatti Police Station, now the Inspector of Police,
Karripatty Police Station, Salem District and also Mr.Murugesan, the
Inspector of Police, Thammampatti Police Station.
ii. The Superintendent of Police, Salem, is directed to recover
the salary of Mr.K.Murugesan, the Inspector of Police,
Thammampatti Police Station, Salem District, for the period from
08.08.2021 to 12.04.2022 and also recover the salary of
Mr.Senthilkumar, the then Inspector of Police, Thammampatti Police
Station now serving as the Inspector of Police, Karripatty Police
Station, Salem District, for the period from 19.07.2021 to till the date
of his relieving from the post of Inspector of Police, Thammampatti
Police Station, at the earliest.
iii. The Inspector General of Police, West Zone is hereby
directed to withdraw the F.I.R. in Crime No.203 of 2018 on the file
of the Thammampatti Police Station and transfer the same to some
other Police Station in Coimbatore District to investigate the matter
and to file the charge sheet within a period of three months
preferably on or before 29.07.2022.
6. With the above said directions, the Contempt Petition is
disposed of."
5. Aggrieved by the above order, Senthilkumar has filed Cont.A.No.3
of 2022 and Murugesan has filed Cont.A.No.4 of 2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2022
6. Heard Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants. Private notice was served on Saravanan. Since he did not enter
appearance, we directed the learned counsel for the appellants to inform
Mr.N.Manoharan, Advocate, who appeared for Saravanan before the learned
single Judge.
7. Today, Mr.K.Murugesan, Inspector of Police and
Mr.M.Senthilkumar, Inspector of Police, are present.
8. Heard Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, learned counsel appearing for the
police and Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel, who appeared for Saravanan
before the learned single Judge. It is trite that original contempt proceedings
and appeals therefrom are matters essentially between the Court and the
alleged contemnors. Hence, Saravanan cannot have much say in this appeal.
9. Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, submitted that when the FIR in Thammampatti P.S. Crime
No.203 of 2018 was registered, one Vijaya Kumar was the Inspector of
Police. He completed the investigation and closed the case as 'mistake of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2022
fact', but did not take steps to serve the RCS notice on Saravanan nor he
filed the closure report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore,
Saravanan was totally unaware of the fact that the complaint given by him
in Thammampatti P.S. Crime No.203 of 2018 was closed. When a fresh
First Information Report was registered against Saravanan in Thalaivasal
P.S.Crime No.192 of 2021 on the complaint given by Malar, Saravanan
rushed to this Court for quashing the First Information Report by filing
Crl.O.P.No.12432 of 2021. During the arguments in Crl.O.P.No.12432 of
2021, learned counsel for Saravanan brought to the notice of the learned
single Judge that the complaint given by Saravanan is pending investigation
in Thammampatti P.S. Crime No.203 of 2018. Learned Public Prosecutor
also did not bring to the notice of the learned single Judge that the case in
Thammampatti P.S. Crime No.203 of 2018 was closed as 'mistake of fact' on
15.12.2018. Under such circumstances, learned single Judge was under the
impression that the case in Thammampatti P.S. Crime No.203 of 2018 was
pending and therefore, the learned single Judge directed the Thammampatti
Police to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet on or before
24.09.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2022
10. Now before us as well before the learned single Judge, Senthil
Kumar and Murugesan submitted that on receipt of the copy of the order
dated 19.07.2021, they both checked the FIR index as well the CCTNS
portal and found that the case was closed way back on 15.12.2018. Of
course, they did not take steps to find out whether the RCS notice was
served on Saravanan and intimation was given to the concerned
jurisdictional Magistrate.
11. It is the case of Senthil Kumar that he served as Inspector of
Police in Thammampatti Police Station only for a brief period viz.,
11.03.2021 to 08.08.2021. It is the defence of Murugesan that though he
joined as Inspector of Police, Thammampatti Police Station on 08.08.2021,
he was made in charge of eight police stations, which did not have regular
Inspectors in Salem district, in support of which, he produced the
proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Salem dated 01.10.2021 and
22.01.2022. He also submitted that he had taken charge during the peak of
Covid-19 and on account of work burden, he had failed to take steps to
serve RCS notice on the de facto complainant and intimate the concerned
Court for which, he has tendered his unconditional apology.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2022
12. We carefully considered their explanations as well their apologies.
Had the DIG of Police and Superintendent of Police, during their annual
inspection, checked the FIR registers properly, these aspects would have
come to light. Failure on the part of the senior police officials in not
conducting proper inspection of the station house records had resulted in
colossal waste of judicial time on this matter.
13. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that pursuant to
the order of the learned single Judge, the case in Thammampatti P.S.Crime
No.203 of 2018 was transferred to Inspector of Police, Sulur, Coimbatore
District, who also conducted an independent investigation and came to the
same conclusion and closed the case as 'mistake of fact'. Learned Additional
Public Prosecutor submitted that RCS notice has been served on Saravanan
and the same has also been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate II,
Athur. Learned Judicial Magistrate II, Athur, issued notice to Saravanan and
he also appeared before the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2022
14. On a conspectus of the facts obtaining in this case, we find that
there was no supine or wilful failure on the part of these two officers
[Senthilkumar and Murugesan] in not complying with the directions issued
by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.12432 of 2021 dated 19.07.2021 inasmuch as,
the investigation in Thammampatti P.S. Crime No.203 of 2018 was
conducted by Vijaya Kumar, Inspector of Police and the case was closed as
'mistake of fact', which was the main reason for these two officers
[Senthilkumar and Murugesan] in not proceeding further with the
investigation of a closed case.
15. The failure of these two police officers [Senthilkumar and
Murugesan] in not serving RCS notice on the de facto complainant and
filing the closure report before the jurisdictional Magistrate is a laxity,
which cannot be said to be very serious warranting punishment for contempt
of Court. In our opinion, this may not amount to wilful disobedience of the
orders of this Court. That apart, punishment prescribed by Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, can only be imposed and not the
punishments referred to in paragraph No.4 above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2022
In the result, these Contempt Appeals are allowed and the order of
punishment imposed in Contempt Petition No.498 of 2022 dated 12.04.2022
is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[PNP, J.] [TKR, J.]
04.11.2022
Index: Yes/No
gm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2022
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
gm
Contempt Appeal Nos.3 and 4 of 2022
04.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
