IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:10.12.2008
Coram
The Honourable Mr. JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM
Crl.O.P.No.25965 of 2008
Mr. Ahamed Ibrahim .... Petitioner
-Vs.-
The Inspector of Police
F3 Police Station
Nungambakkam, Chennai. .... Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the respondent police to comply with the order dated 31.03.2008 passed in I.A.No.3041 of 2008 O.S.No.6472 of 2008 by XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras and also to file a final report in C.S.R.No.23/CSR/F3/2008, dated 23.1.2008 and C.S.R.No.44/CSR/F3 PS L&O/08, dated 10.2.2008 before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.
For Petitioner :Mr. M.L. Ganesh
For Respondent :Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah
Govt.Advocate (Crl.side)
- - -
O R D E R
With the consent of the learned counsel on either side the above Criminal Original Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondent police to comply with the order dated 31.3.2008 passed in I.A.No.3041 of 2008 O.S.No.6472 of 2008 by XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras and also to file a final report in C.S.R.No.23/CSR/F3/2008, dated 23.1.2008 and C.S.R.No.44/CSR/F3 PS L&O/08, dated 10.2.2008 before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai.
3. Heard both.
4. Mr. M.L. Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land and building bearing Door No.27, Kumarappa Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 originally belonged to one Mrs. Valliammal by virtue of her purchase made under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1368/1971, S.R.O. T.Nagar and the petitioner purchased the said property from her under a registered sale deed bearing document No.65/2007, S.R.O. Thousand lights; originally the patta stood in the name of Mrs. Valliammal and after the purchase by the petitioner, patta has been transferred in favour of the petitioner; after obtaining the demolition plan from the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai under order, dated 14.1.2008, the building was demolished in order to put up a new construction.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the intervener Mrs. Malathy residing on the rear side of the said property made an unlawful attempt to usurp the vacant land with the help of local elements and started demanding money to allow the petitioner to put up construction which necessitated the lodging of the complaints, dated 23.1.2008 and 10.2.2008 by the petitioner before the respondent. Since no action was taken, representation was made to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nungambakkam, but there was no response. Hence, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the said Malathy in O.S.No.7297/2007 before the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and also filed I.A.No.1577/2008 for interim injunction restraining the said Malathy from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner and in I.A.No.1577 of 2008 interim injunction was granted on 7.2.2008. Subsequently, the interim injunction was also made absolute. Since no action was taken on the complaints lodged by the petitioner, he filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, seeking for a direction to the respondent herein to investigate the complaints dated 23.1.2008 and 10.2.2008 and the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by an order, dated 25.2.2008 passed in M.P.No.125 of 2008 directed the respondent herein to register the case, investigate the same and submit his report. But in spite of the said direction given by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, no case was registered. In the wake of total inaction on the part of the respondent and in order to give effect to the order of the Civil Court, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3041 of 2008 under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking for a direction to the respondent to give protection to the petitioner’s life and suit property. In the said I.A. an order, dated 31.3.2008 to the following effect was passed:-
“The injunction order has been made absolute till the disposal of the suit and therefore I am of the opinion that the order should be protected and executed and for that the petitioner may require the help of police. Hence, the petition is allowed and the Station House Officer of F3, Police Station, is directed to give such Assistance as may be required to execute the order passed in I.A.No.1577 of 2008.”
6. Subsequently, the suit was decreed ex parte. In the meanwhile, the petitioner sent a representation the Chief Minister’s Cell, which in turn forwarded the same to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, with a communication, dated 3.3.2008 marked to the petitioner informing about the forwarding of the petitioner’s representation to the Commissioner of Police.
7. The learned counsel further submitted only due to the political influence wielded by the intervener Mrs. Malathy, the respondent is not showing any respect to the orders of the Court and the inaction on the part of the respondent to give effect to the orders passed by the civil court as well as the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, amounts to dereliction of duty and utter disregard to the authority of law.
8. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. In the counter affidavit, the receipt of the complaints, dated 23.1.2008 and 10.2.2008 lodged by the petitioner is admitted. But it is stated that the enquiry revealed that Mrs. Malathy was in possession of the property for more than 25 years and since the case is civil in nature, he convinced both the parties to settle the matter in a civil court and both the parties accepted to settle the matter before the civil court and a letter was obtained from Mrs. Malathy to the effect that she would not demand any money from the petitioner and hence, the C.S.R.Nos.23 and 44 of 2008 were closed.
9. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that till 31.10.2008 he had not received any order from the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras passed in I.A.No.3041 of 2008 directing the respondent police to give protection to the petitioner and now only he has come to know about the same and it is stated that necessary protection will be given to the petitioner.
10. It is further stated that the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, in M.P.No.125 of 2008 came to the knowledge of the respondent only through the petitioner and after that he convinced the petitioner that both the petitions filed by the petitioner are purely civil in nature and accepting his words, the petitioner himself has taken away the order passed in M.P.NO.125 of 2008 and after that the petitioner did not approach the respondent in that regard. It is further stated that the complaint was taken back by the petitioner.
11. The respondent further stated that if the petitioner produces the complaint with the direction of the Magistrate, he is duty bound to register the case and proceed in accordance with law. He has also tendered unconditional apology for any wrong doing on his part.
12. A sworn affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by his Power Agent one Ramesh Kumar. In the affidavit it is stated that original order, dated 25.2.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in M.P.No.125 of 2008 was handed over to the respondent along with the petition and the letter given by his counsel, but no acknowledgement was given in receipt of the same. Since there was no response from the respondent, the petitioner had to send a representation to the Chief Minister’s Cell and the same was registered vide No.B/52412, dated 3.3.2008. It is further stated that subsequent to the said representation, the respondent assured the petitioner to take necessary steps against the accused but failed to honour the same. It is further stated that he handed over the order, dated 31.3.2008 passed in I.A.No.3041 of 2008 in O.S.No.647 of 2008 directly to the respondent. But for obvious reasons, no action has been taken by the respondent.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the aforesaid facts and contentions put forth in the petition as well as in the sworn affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner.
14. Countering the said submissions, Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that neither the order passed by the City Civil Court directing the respondent to provide police protection to the petitioner’s life and property nor the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing the registration of the case on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner were directly received from the respective courts. He further submitted that the order copies were not received by the respondent. Therefore, the learned Govt. Advocate submitted that no action was taken by the respondent. The learned Govt. Advocate further submitted that frivolous and unsubstantiated allegations were made in the complaints lodged by the petitioner.
15. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
16. A careful consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, which are brought to the notice of this Court, the connected and relevant documents and the orders of the Civil and Criminal Courts referred to above makes it abundantly clear that the respondent was aware of the orders passed by the civil court as well as the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, the respondent himself has stated that the order passed in M.P.No.125 of 2008 by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, came to his knowledge only through the petitioner. But it is stated by the respondent that after knowing the order, he convinced the petitioner since both the petitions are purely in civil nature and the petitioner has accepted his words and has taken away the order passed in M.P.No.125 of 2008 and thereafter, he did not approach him in that regard.
17. If the aforesaid averment made by the respondent is true, there would have been no necessity at all for the petitioner to send a representation to the Chief Minister’s Cell making a request to give necessary direction to implement the orders passed by the courts. The orders passed by both the civil court as well as the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court are in favour of the petitioner and the same have been passed to protect the right of the petitioner over the property in question.
18. When a person has obtained orders in his favour, it is beyond ones comprehension and understanding that such person would keep quiet and accept the advise of the respondent on the ground that it is a civil dispute. It may be a civil dispute in one sense and that is the reason why the petitioner has approached the civil court seeking permanent injunction and pending the suit, interim injunction has also been granted, which has subsequently been made absolute, in favour of the petitioner and when that order was not complied with by the defendant in the suit, he has filed a petition seeking police protection and such a direction has been issued to the respondent and the copy of the order has also been handed over to the respondent by the petitioner together with the petition and the letter of his counsel. But in spite of that the respondent had not taken any action whatsoever. The inaction on the part of the respondent leads to the irresistible conclusion that the respondent is colluding with the intervener Mrs.Malathy. Such conduct on the part of the respondent is highly deplorable.
19. A law abiding citizen like the petitioner reposing full faith in the courts has approached the courts and obtained orders in his favour and further by reposing faith in the respondent he had approached him to give effect to the orders of the Courts but unfortunately the respondent has shown scant respect to the orders of the courts. The callous attitude and inaction on the part of the respondent and scant respect shown by the respondent to the orders of the courts are unpardonable and such dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent will tarnish the image of the police force of the State among the public. If such person is allowed to remain in service, the public will lose their faith and confidence in the State Police.
20. Further, experience of this Court shows that even after orders are passed by the Courts concerned or by this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for registration of the case, the Police does not take the necessary steps and the parties concerned are again compelled to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions. In view of the same, this Court is constrained to allow the Criminal Original Petition as prayed for and give further directions as set-out below:-
If the respondent herein is directed by this Court to comply with the directions issued by the Civil and Criminal Courts referred to above, the respondent, in view of the observations made herein, may not conduct a fair and impartial investigation and hence this Court is directing the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034 to:
(a) comply with the direction issued by the XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in I.A.No.3041 of 2008 in O.S.No.647 of 2008, dated 31.3.2008;
(b) give police protection to the petitioner’s life and property at once ;
(c) comply with the direction in M.P.No.125 of 2008 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to register the case and investigate the same and file final report in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. and
(d) The investigation to be done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34 shall be monitored by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nungambakkam Division.
(e) A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, and he is hereby directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in accordance with the service rules applicable to the respondent within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the result of the same shall be communicated to the Registry of this Court.
Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed.
10.12.2008
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
rnb / srk
To
1. The Inspector of Police, F-3, Police Station, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34
3. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai 8
4. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chenni,
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
K.MOHAN RAM, J.,
srk
Pre-Delivery Order in
Crl.O.P.No.25965 of 2008
10.12.2008