Madras High Court
Vijaya. G vs The Home Secretary Home Department on 5 April, 2024
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
W.P(MD)No.8612 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.04.2024
CORAM :
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD) No.8612 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.7889 of 2024
Vijaya. G ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Home Secretary Home Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai-09
2.The Director General of Police,
Office of the DGP,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai-05
3. The Director General of Police,
O/o. the Director General of Police(DGP),
Crime Branch Crime Investigation Department (CBCID),
No. 220, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-8
4. The Superintendent of Police
Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai
5. The Inspector of Police
Manamelkudi Police Station,
Pudukkottai District
6. The District Collector
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.8612 of 2024
7. The Chief Medical Officer
Government Hospital,
Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents 1 to 4 to entrust the investigation of pending case in Crime
No. 70 of 2024 dated 27.03.2024 on the file of the 5th respondent Police
Station to the 3rd respondent officer for a fair and impartial investigation
and to direct the 3rd respondent to file periodic report to this Court on the
progress made in the investigation and to direct the 6th respondent to
grant Rupees One Crore as a compensation to the petitioner within the
time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Ganeshamoorthi
For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition for a Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondents 1 to 4 to entrust the investigation of pending
case in Crime No. 70 of 2024 dated 27.03.2024 on the file of the 5 th
respondent Police Station to the 3rd respondent officer for a fair and
impartial investigation and to direct the 3rd respondent to file periodic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
report to this Court on the progress made in the investigation and to
direct the 6th respondent to grant compensation to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the mother of the deceased. The petitioner's
son, viz., Vignesh died on 27.03.2024. The petitioner having a grievance
as against the investigation agency that the investigation has not been
conducted in a proper manner, has filed this Writ Petition seeking a relief
for conducting re-post mortem
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
contention has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties V. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2014-10-SCC-635 and another judgment of this Court in W.P.
(MD)No.8160 of 2020 (Palammal V. The Home Secretary, Home
Department, Secretariat, Chennai), dated 30.07.2020 and submits that
the post mortem ought to have been conducted by two Doctors. However,
in this case, post mortem is conducted by a single Doctor and prayed re-
post mortem to be conducted by two Doctors.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the
deceased is an accused involved in Crime No.221 of 2021, under
Sections 109 and 328 I.P.C and Sections 21(a) and 27(a) of N.D.P.S Act,
in Crime No.89 of 2022 under Sections 328 and 109 I.P.C, on the file of
the Pudukkottai Police Station and in Crime No.124 of 2023 under
Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii) (B), 25 of N.D.P.S Act, on the file of the
Thirukogarnam Police Station. The deceased is having several enemies.
The occurrence has taken place on 26.03.2024 at about 11.30 pm. near
his house and the body of the deceased found from the lake, which is
adjacent to his house. There is no eye witness for the occurrence. The
uncle of the deceased has stated about the incident that took place at
about 10.30 pm. The body was recovered only on 27.03.2024.
Thereafter, inquest was conducted on 29.03.2024 at about 12.00 p.m., to
1.45 p.m., at Government Medical College and Hospital, Pudukkottai.
The complaint was lodged by the petitioner on 27.03.2024 at about 09.00
pm. Based on her complaint only, the dead body was recovered and an
inquest was conducted and thereafter, this body was also referred for post
mortem to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Pudukkottai,
at about 03.00 pm, the post mortem was conducted by Dr.S.Karthiga
Devi, M.D., (Forensic) and the entire post mortem was also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
videographed. The petitioner even after completion of the post mortem,
has refused to receive the body from the Hospital and insisting for a
re-post mortem and therefore, the investigation agency could not proceed
further investigation.
5. This Court considered the rival submissions made.
6. The complaint itself has been lodged by this petitioner on
27.03.2024 at about 9.00 p.m., at the instance of the petitioner. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that they have intending to
hand over this video graph to the petitioner and the post mortem report,
however, the petitioner is insisting for re-post mortem and also seeking
compensation as if it is a case of communal violence. As on date there is
no material to substantiate that this is a case of communal violence. The
petitioner refused to take the dead body and therefore, the entire police
force is spending the time in protecting the dead body. It is not a routine
a fair that a post mortem in all the cases has to be conducted by two
Doctors. As on date, the case is registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C and
the offence has not been altered. There is no eye witness for the
occurrence and the petitioner has also not made out any case, as it is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
case of communal violence and it can be identified only during the
course of investigation. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a police encounter
case, wherein two Doctors were directed to conduct the post mortem that
ratio cannot be applied in this case. In the absence of any statutory
provisions, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Petition.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also stated that the
petitioner by filing this application, is not taking the dead body, in such
circumstances, the Division Bench this Court has passed as order in W.P.
(MD)No.9292 of 2021 and 8670 of 2021 (Pavanasam V. Chief
Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chenni), dated
30.06.2021. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
“5. From the happenings, which have taken place on
various dates of hearing and what we have recorded in our
earlier orders and on a cursory perusal of the reports of the
police officials with regard to the activities of the petitioner
and others, this Court finds it appropriate to order disposal
of the body of the deceased and it cannot be allowed to lie in
the mortuary.
6. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the
State Government the relevant statute applicable for disposal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the body is Tamil Nadu Anatomy Act, 1951 and Tamil
Nadu Anatomy Rules, 1951 and in particular, Section 4 of the
Act and Rule 4(1) of the Rules. Furthermore, it is submitted
that continuance of the body of the deceased to remain in
hospital is deemed to be a nuisance in terms of the definition
under Section 2(25) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act,
1939 and in terms of Section 45 of the Act, the local authority
has power to abate the nuisance.”
8. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the
following direction:
(i) The respondent police is directed to hand over the post mortem
certificate and a copy of the videograph taken during the post mortem to
this petitioner forthwith.
(ii) If the petitioner is not taking the dead body, it is left with the
respondent police to proceed with the funeral as directed by this Court in
W.P.(MD)No.9292 of 2021 cited supra;
(iii) The petitioner is expected to co-operate for investigation by
producing material, if any, with the petitioner;
(iv) the respondent police shall conduct an investigation in a fair
manner and find out the real truth;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(v) In any event, if the petitioner is having any grievance as against
the respondent police that the respondent police is not conducting a fair
investigation, it is always open to the petitioner to file necessary
application with reasons for transferring the investigation.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.04.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
LS
To
1.The Home Secretary Home Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai-09
2.The Director General of Police,
Office of the DGP,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai-05
3. The Director General of Police,
O/o. the Director General of Police(DGP),
Crime Branch Crime Investigation Department (CBCID),
No. 220, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-8
4. The Superintendent of Police
Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The Inspector of Police
Manamelkudi Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
6. The District Collector
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai.
7. The Chief Medical Officer
Government Hospital,
Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
8.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
B.PUGALENDHI, J
LS
Order made in
05.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
