Madras High Court
C.Kubendrakumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 23 November, 2023
Author: M. Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M. Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2023 &
Crl.M.P.No.5765 of 2023
C.Kubendrakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
(Law and Order),
N1 Royapuram Police Station,
Chennai – 600 013.
2.Martin Roberts,
S/o Roberts,
Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Police Control Room,
Fort St. George Town,
Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondents
(R2 impleaded as per order
dated 06.06.2023 made in
Crl.M.P.No.7632 of 2023 in
Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2023)
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under section 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 06.07.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.16762 of
2021 in R.C.S.No.2 of 2021 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, City
Civil Court, Chennai and dispose of the same on merits.
Page 1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.741 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Anand
For respondent 1 : Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For respondent 2 : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
ORDER
This revision has been filed to set aside the order dated 06.07.2022
passed in Crl.M.P.No.16762 of 2021 in R.C.S.No.2 of 2021 by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
2. The petitioner had filed a complaint and the case in Crime No.1160
of 2013 has been registered. The petitioner is a practising Advocate at
George Town Court, Chennai. On 22.02.2011 at about 10 pm, there was a
quarrel near his residence. The petitioner made several requests to stop the
quarrel, but it got aggravated and thereafter, the petitioner called the police
control room. One M.Martin, Inspector of Police (Crime), in charge of law
and order, N2 Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai – 600 013 along with team
arrived at the place of occurrence at 10.30 p.m. and enquired who called the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
police, for which the petitioner answered him that he only called the control
room. Thereafter, they were asked to disburse and they refused to do so. The
petitioner claiming that he is an advocate and he cannot be deterred by the
police and thereafter, he was dragged and taken to the vehicle and also
questioned his birth and also about his mother. The petitioner was arrested
and a false case against him has been registered in Crime No.262 of 2011.
On completion of the investigation, charge sheet filed in C.C.No.1479 of
2021 before the trial court. The petitioner was forced to face the trial in the
aforesaid case and thereafter, the trial court by judgment dated 29.11.2022
acquitted the petitioner finding that the case against the petitioner is not
proven.
3. On the other hand, the petitioner's complaint was not properly
enquired, despite the petitioner making representations to the Commissioner
of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The petitioner had also
filed a direction petition under section 482 Cr.P.C before this Court in
Crl.O.P.No.7153 of 2021 and thereafter only case has been registered. Even
at each stage, the petitioner had to file one after another petition for proper
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
investigation. The petitioner had filed a petition seeking transfer of
investigation from the local police to CCB and that also did not yield the
desire result and finally the case was closed as mistake of fact. Referred
charge sheet filed. The petitioner filed protest petition and the lower court
failed to consider the petitioner's submissions in the protest petition and
dismissed the same and the present petition has been filed.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a practising advocate
and when he was in his house, there saw a quarrel in the street. The
petitioner tried to convince the quarrel, but it got further aggravated. He nly
called emergency number 100 and thereafter, Inspector of Police, Kasimedu
Police Station along with his team had arrived at the scene of occurrence.
They immediately threatened and chased away the persons present there.
The petitioner being an advocate, had questioned the forcible action of the
police, which offended them and thereafter he was dragged and taken to the
police station and at that time, he was abused and questioned about his birth
as well as his mother's character for which the petitioner got angry. The
petitioner lodged a complaint to the first respondent police, but no action
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has been taken. The petitioner being a practising advocate, was pushed to
such a dire state. Thereafter, he had to run from pillar to post and after
several attempts, the case came to be registered and the investigation
started. The persons named in the complaint being the police personnel, the
entire police had supported them and not conducted a proper investigation.
The petitioner had faced the case in C.C.No.1479 of 2021 and finally he was
acquitted. While acquitting the petitioner, the trial court had clearly
recorded the contradictions of the police personnel about the incident and
also about the persons viz., Ezhil and Sekar. Further, the witnesses LW7 and
LW8 which are listed in the charge sheet were found to be not available in
the said address. The witness for observation mahazar had not supported the
case of the prosecution stating that the signature was not that of them. The
doctor gave an opinion that unless blood test and urine test are taken, the
intensity of the alcohol cannot be proved. Considering all these aspects,
after a prolong fight, the petitioner got honorary acquittal. On the other
hand, the police personnel who had harassed and assaulted the petitioner
have left free. Hence, challenging the dismissal of the protest petition, he
filed the present petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent submitted that the petitioner was in a drunken state and was
creating a nuisance in the area. When the information was received by the
police control room, the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence.
At that time, the other persons who had created nuisance got disbursed and
the petitioner claiming to be a practising advocate, abused the police
officials and threatened them. With force, the petitioner was taken to the
police station and then, taken to the hospital where the doctors examined
him and found alcohol smell on him and also the way he behaved, but he
refused to give blood and urine samples to confirm the alcohol percentage
in his body. The police personnel PW1 to PW4 who picked the petitioner up
from the scene of occurrence have clearly stated about the incident and the
petitioner's conduct. The lower court had given an acquittal for the reason
that the two other independent witnesses were not available at the said
address, the observation mahazar witness does not support the case of the
prosecution and the petitioner's consumption of alcohol not proved. This
would not give a licence to the petitioner to straight-away prosecute the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
police personnel attached to the respondent police who have acted on an
emergency call from the patrol team. The petitioner had not denied the call
to the control room. The police party reached the scene of occurrence and
the petitioner was picked up along with others from the scene of occurrence.
It is only degree of handling the petitioner is being questioned. This cannot
be termed to be an illegal act and further, cannot be termed as the
respondents' act is not in discharge of their official duty. Considering all
these factors, the closure report had been filed. The lower court after giving
opportunity to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner in detail,
dismissed the same. The order of the lower court is detailed and well
reasoned, which needs no interference and hence, prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
6. The second respondent/Inspector who lead the team on 22.02.2011,
after getting the emergency call from the control room submitted that he had
gone along with his police team. Since the said call was an emergency call
from the control room, to maintain law and order at the late night hours, he
went to the place and found that there was a nuisance, creating disturbance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and also a chance of a ensuing law and order problem. The police had
cleared the persons present in the scene of occurrence, the petitioner who
was in a drunken state, abused the police team and also attempted to assault.
Thereafter, he was taken to the police station and thereafter he could not be
controlled and was taken to the Government Hospital for medical
examination, where the petitioner had refused to give blood and urine
samples which is recorded in the accident register. On the other hand, now
he takes a stand that the case against him not proved. The respondent has no
personal animosity against the petitioner. It was their duty to maintain law
and order. Apart from this, the petitioner and the second respondent have no
other dispute or incident wherein the second respondent has some motive to
falsely implicate the petitioner. He further submitted that if the second
respondent had not attended the emergency call, he would be held for
disciplinary action. On the other hand, for attending the emergency call, he
cannot be penalised. The lower court acquitting the petitioner in
CC.No.1476 of 2021 might be for many reasons, which cannot be attributed
against the police personnel and stated that the complaint of the petitioner
against the second respondent is not genuine, but an harassment, initiated to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
wreck vengeance.
7. Considering the submissions, made on either side and perusal of
the materials, it is seen that the petitioner is a practising advocate. The
incident took place on 22.02.2011. The second respondent on the call from
the control room along with the patrol team had gone there and thereafter,
the petitioner was taken to the police station. Since the petitioner was
repulsive, acted in a defiant manner, doubts were caused to the police about
the petitioner's consumption of alcohol, he was taken to the hospital.
Doctors confirmed the alcohol smell, but he was within the limits.
Thereafter, the case has been registered. Now, the petitioner was acquitted
from the case against him. The petitioner's complaint against the second
respondent and others for attending to emergency call, is part of their duty
which cannot be termed as a motivated one and excessive, in the absence of
any motive and reason, the act of the second respondent discharging his
duty cannot be faulted upon. The investigation concluded and thereafter,
closed as mistake of fact, which the lower court considered and dismissed
the protest petition with reason. This Court finds no reason to interfere with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the findings of the lower court order.
8. Hence this Criminal Revision is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.11.2023
nl
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1.1.The Inspector of Police,
(Law and Order),
N1 Royapuram Police Station,
Chennai – 600 013.
2. The Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
nl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
