Madras High Court
Punitha @ Manimegalai @ Mumthaj ... vs The State Represented By on 8 August, 2023
W.P(MD)No.13886 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.13886 of 2015
Punitha @ Manimegalai @ Mumthaj Begam ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The State represented by
The Home Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Beach Road, Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District.
5.The Member Secretary,
State Legal Service Authority,
Chennai High Court Campus,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P(MD)No.13886 of 2015
6.The Inspector of Police,
Marupanadu Police Station,
Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay fair and
adequate amount of compensation to the petitioner within the time stipulated by
this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mrs.K.Christy Theboral
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.The writ petitioner hails from Peroor Village, Srivaikundam Taluk,
Thoothukudi District. The petitioner left her native place in the year 2002 and
went to Chennai. She married one Shajahan and got converted to Islam. She
was blessed with two children. When she returned to her native place in
February 2011, she came to know that four of her relatives had faced criminal
prosecution for murder and got acquitted on 20.02.2007 in S.C.No.259 of 2005
on the file of Fast Track Court No.2 cum Additional Sessions Court,
Thoothukudi. Interestingly, the charge against them was they had killed the
petitioner and set fire to her body. The petitioner thereupon appeared before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13886 of 2015
District Collector, Thoothukudi as well as the Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi and appraised them of the real facts. The persons who were
accused of murder and who got acquitted later filed Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.4225 of
2011 and 7759 of 2011 before this bench. This Court directed conducting of
DNA test on the petitioner. Based on the results, the Criminal Original
Petitions were disposed of on 15.07.2015 in the following terms:
“54. In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are
disposed of in the following terms:
(i) The final report submitted by the Inspector of Police,
Murappanadu Police Station in Crime No.147 of 2002 under
Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside and consequently,
all the consequential proceedings including the order of the
lower Court taking cognizance, the trial conducted and the
judgment delivered on 20.02.2007 are hereby set aside. The
petitioners herein and Mr.Dhasan [the 4th Accused] shall stand
discharged from the case in Crime No.147 of 2002.
(ii) Since the final report filed by the police and all the
other consequential proceedings, including the judgment are set
aside, the investigation of the case in Crime No.147 of 2002
shall stand reopened. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mr.Dharmalingam, District Crime Branch, Tuticorin, shall take
up the case forthwith for investigation, conduct a thorough
investigation in respect of the dead body, which was found on
05.04.2002 on the road leading to Vallakulam Village. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13886 of 2015
Investigating Officer shall ascertain as to whose dead body was
that and bring to book the perpetrators of the crime. (iii)
The trial Court shall remit all the case records to the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam, who shall hold enquiry,
receive the final report, if any, to be filed by the police under
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and proceed further in accordance with
law.
(iv) The request of the petitioners for registration of a
case against the police officers and the Village Administrative
Officer and others as provided under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is
dismissed.
(v) The Secretary, Home (Police) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu, shall pay Rs.4 lakhs as
compensation to each accused in S.C.No.259 of 2005 on the file
of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No.II, Tuticorin, namely, Mr.Koilpillai,
Mr.Balasubramanian, Mr.Kurunthan @ Jeyakumar and
Mr.Dhasan, by means of demand drafts drawn in their
respective name within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
(vi) These Original Petitions shall stand dismissed in
respect of all the other reliefs sought for.
...
58. Authenticity of the judicial system rests on public
confidence and the public confidence rests on legitimacy of
judicial system. I part with this case with pain that the time
tested criminal justice delivery system has been put to perils in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13886 of 2015
this case degenerating the confidence of the people in the
system. Had this woman, Mrs.Manimegalai not gone to the
District Collector, the travesty of justice declaring her dead
would have been perpetuated . But, for these petitions filed by
the petitioners, this mockery would not have been corrected. I
am satisfied that though belated, justice is done to the
aggrieved at least now. As Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the
Nation preached, “Truth is a powerful weapon which
unfailingly triumphs.” In this case, at last, truth has
triumphed.”
The petitioner, thereafter, sought compensation. Since it was not considered,
the present writ petition came to be filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated all the
contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and
called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.
4.The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the learned
Additional Government Pleader took me through its contents. The respondents
rely on some of the observations made in order dated 15.07.2015 in the
aforesaid Criminal Original Petitions. The learned Judge had observed that the
Investigating Officers did not act with malice. According to the respondents,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13886 of 2015
the Investigating Officer had discharged his duties in good faith and therefore
the petitioner has no case for payment of compensation. She is also leading a
happy life. The respondents deny the petitioner's claim that her privacy has
been infringed and that she had to undergo immense mental agony and anguish.
The respondents pressed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record.
6.The petitioner had left her native place in the year 2002 itself. The
case was registered as if the petitioner was murdered. Four innocent persons
were implicated. Eventually, they got acquitted in the year 2007 itself. Nothing
was heard about the writ petitioner. It was the writ petitioner who happened to
return to her native place in the year 2011 and brought to the notice of the
authorities that she is very much alive. Therefore, this Court had referred to the
petitioner in glowing terms. Hence, the claim that her rights has been infringed
and she was disturbed cannot be accepted.
7.But, however, there is a case for grant of compensation. Though the
writ petitioner on her own took up the matter, the petitioner had definitely
troubled herself considerably. She had to go to the District Collector, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13886 of 2015
Superintendent of Police, the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police,
jurisdictional Revenue authorities and the Inspector of Police. She had to come
to Madurai Medical College Hospital to offer his DNA samples. She attended
this Court also. The petitioner is in Chennai. She had to come down to
Thoothukudi on every occasion. Since she was having minor children, she
could not come alone. She had to bring them along. Her husband also
accompanied her. I may not accept the memo filed by the petitioner at its face
value, because it is not backed by any material. The petitioner is not able to
produce any material to show that the petitioner was made to come on every
occasion. No enquiry notice or summon has been produced before this Court.
However, this Court can definitely assume that the petitioner had to visit
Thoothukudi on quite a few occasions. She would have definitely incurred
expenditure.
8.Since it is eventually for the cause of justice, it is the State that has to
compensate the petitioner. I direct the first respondent to pay a sum of
Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) to the petitioner towards
compensation for the expenditure incurred by her. This amount shall be paid
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13886 of 2015
9. This writ petition is allowed on these terms. There shall be no order as
to costs.
08.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
MGA
To
1.The Home Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Beach Road,
Chennai.
3.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Thoothukudi District.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District.
5.The Member Secretary,
State Legal Service Authority,
Chennai High Court Campus,
Chennai.
6.The Inspector of Police,
Marupanadu Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.13886 of 2015
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
MGA
W.P(MD)No.13886 of 2015
08.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
