BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14/03/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU H.C.P.(MD) No.382 of 2005 Perumalsamy .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu rep. by Inspector of Police Vedachandur Police Station Dindugal District. 2.The Superintendent of Police Dindugal District. 3.Lakkaya Gounder 4.Kettayappan .. Respondents PRAYER Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. !For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Ravi ^For Respondents ... Mr.P.Jothi Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondents 1 and 2 Mr.P.Thangaiah for Respondents 3 and 4 :ORDER
(Order of this Court is made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)
The petitioner, who is the father of one Vetrivel, the detenu,
specifically alleging that respondents 3 and 4 are responsible for the missing
of the detenu, have preferred this habeas corpus petition for issue of a writ of
habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu and to
set him at liberty.
2. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of this writ
petition, has specifically stated that in spite of his written complaint on
18.8.2005 addressed to the second respondent as well as the Director General of
Police, Chennai and to the Chief Minister’s Special Cell, Secretariat, Chennai,
respondents 1 and 2 have not shown any progress in the investigation to secure
the detenu.
3. On the other hand, the first respondent filed a status report dated
Nil, to the effect that they have registered a complaint lodged by the
petitioner as one of ‘man missing’; the pamphlets with photograph of the
missing boy were prepared and circulated in the public places; while the Sub
Inspector of Police on 23.11.2005 went to Karur Town and Sathiyamangalam and
conducted a search for the detenu, Mr.Selvaraj, Head Constable, on 26.11.2005,
went to Ottanchatram, Dharapuram and Palani and another Head Constable, Mr.Siva,
on 2.12.2005, went and searched for the detenu in and around Dindigul,
Ottanchatram and Dharapuram; on 1.12.2005, Head Constable, Mr.Siva visited
Kangeyam and made enquiries in public places showing the photograph of the
missing boy; and that the photograph of the detenu was also shown in
Doordarshan; announcement as to the missing of the detenu was also made in
Kodaikanal F.M.Radio; and publications were also made in the Tamily daily
newspapers, but still all efforts ended in vain.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in spite of the
above sincere efforts the police continued their investigation and at last got a
clue that the boy is at Hyderabad and therefore, sent a Special Team consisting
of Mr.Selvaraj, Sub Inspector of Police, Vedasandur, Mr.Chellaiah, H.C.No.671,
Vedasandur and Mr.Srinivasan,H.C.No.1202, Vedamadurai to Hyderabad, but the
Special Team also reported the boy has not been traced at Hyderabad.
5. On the other hand, the petitioner today filed an additional affidavit
dated 13.3.2006 stating that the petitioner strongly suspects that respondents 3
and 4 would have murdered the detenu, Vetrivel as they have offered a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- on 9.3.2006 to withdraw the above habeas corpus petition.
6. Mr.P.Thangaiah, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4, specifically
denying the role of respondents 3 and 4 in the missing of the detenu, submits
that respondents 3 and 4 are in no-way connected with either the missing of the
detenu or the alleged detention.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and
specifically taking into consideration that the boy is missing for more than 6
months in spite of several representations and complaints to the respondents 1
and 2 as well as the Director General of Police, Chennai and to the Chief
Minister’s Special Cell, Secretariat, Chennai, we pass the following order:
(i) Mr.Ruthrasekharan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedasandur, Dindugal
District and Mr.Paramasivam, Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police Station,
Dindugal District shall complete the investigation and file a report before this
Court as to the missing of the detenu, Vetrivel within thirty days from today;
(ii) in case Mr.Ruthrasekharan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedasandur,
Dindugal District and Mr.Paramasivam, Inspector of Police, Vedasandur Police
Station, Dindugal District, fail to secure the detenu and file a report in this
regard within thirty days, the Director General of Police, Chennai is directed
to transfer the investigation to the C.B.C.I.D., entrusting the matter to an
Officer not less than the rank of Superintendent of Police and also take
appropriate departmental action against respondents 1 and 2 as well as the
Investigating Officers, Mr.Ruthrasekharan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vedasandur, Dindugal District and Mr.Paramasivam, Inspector of Police,
Vedasandur Police Station, Dindugal District, for the lapses on their part, if
any;
(iii) the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, shall take over the investigation as
to the missing of the detenu within thirty days from the date of transfer of
investigation and submit a report to this Court;
(iv) if the Superintendent of Police, CBCID also could not show any progress in
the matter, the same shall be transferred to the C.B.I., Chennai for further
investigation, who shall complete the investigation within three months from the
date the investigation is transferred to them and file a report to this Court.
The Director General of Police is also directed to take appropriate action
against the Superintendent of Police, CBCID and the Team of Officers for the
lapse in investigation, if any, in the matter; and
(v) the Registry is directed to place the matter before this Court periodically,
i.e., after thirty days from today, then again after thirty days, and then again
after three months. On the basis of the reports of the Investigating Officers
at every stage, appropriate action shall be taken by the State in accordance
with law in the matter.
With the above directions, this habeas corpus petition is closed.
However, we make it clear that if, ultimately, the statement of the petitioner
is found to be false by the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officers
are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for perjury.
sasi
To:
1.The State of Tamilnadu
rep. by Inspector of Police
Vedachandur Police Station
Dindugal District.
2. The Superintendent of Police
Dindugal District.
f