{"id":139803,"date":"2009-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009"},"modified":"2014-03-11T16:19:38","modified_gmt":"2014-03-11T10:49:38","slug":"m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"M.Karthikeyan vs The Commissioner on 31 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M.Karthikeyan vs The Commissioner on 31 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 31\/08\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM\n\nWrit Petition No.10127 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008\n\nM.Karthikeyan\t\t\t\t... \tPetitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The Commissioner,\n  Social Welfare Department,\n  Ezhilagam,\n  Chennai.\n\n2.The Director General of Police,\n  CBCID\n  Chennai.\n\n3.The Superintendent of Police\n  Tanjore District,\n  Tanjore.\n\n4.The Inspector of Police,\n  Tanjore Town Police Station,\n  Tanjore.\t\t\t\t...\tRespondents\n\n\t\n\tPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for\nthe issuance of  writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to withdraw\nthe case in Crime No.747\/2008 from the fourth respondent police and to hand over\nthe same to the second respondent or to some other independent investigation\nagency.\n\n!For Petitioner       ...   Mr.B.Pugalendhi\n^For Respondents      ...   Mr.D.Gandhiraj,\n\t\t\t    Government Advocate.\n\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tBy consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for a direction to
\ndirect the second respondent to withdraw the case in Crime No.747\/2008 from the
\nfourth respondent police and hand over the same to the second respondent or to
\nsome other investigation agency.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition as could be
\nculled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are stated
\nhereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t The father of the petitioner one Munusamy was working as an Assistant in
\nthe Juvenile Home at Thanjavur. On 08.09.2008 he was assaulted by the Juveniles
\nin the Home and admitted in the Government Hospital, Thanjavur at about 5 p.m
\nand thereafter, he died on the same day. A compliant was lodged by the
\nSuperintendent of the Juvenile Home before the fourth respondent police on the
\nsame day around 6.00 p.m. stating that the Juveniles Karlmarx, Venkatesan,
\nRajesh, Singaravelu, Dhandayudhapani and one Selvam       attacked the
\npetitioner’s father and escaped from the Home.  A case was registered in Crime
\nNo.747\/2008 against six Juveniles for the offences punishable under Sections
\n147, 148, 302 379 and 224 IPC. It is the allegation of the petitioner that his
\nfather was in a disturbed state of mind for one month prior to his death and he
\nhas informed the petitioner and his mother about several illegal activities
\nwhich have taken place in the Home. It is alleged by the petitioner that one
\nKamaraj, working as an assistant in the home has indulged in homo sexual
\nactivities with the Juveniles and based on a complaint an enquiry was conducted.
\nThere was similar allegation against another staff by name Sitibabu and it is
\nstated that the petitioner’s father lodged a complaint against the said Sitibabu
\non 02.02.2003 and an enquiry was conducted against him.  The further allegation
\nis that the employees of the Juvenile Home namely Kamaraj, Sitibabu, the
\nSuperintendent of the Home one Rathinam and washer man by name Ganapathy all of
\nthem together used the Juveniles in the home to kill the petitioner’s father. It
\nis further alleged that after the incident, the petitioner went to the Home to
\ntake his father’s belongings and before which the diary and other documents
\nwhich were said to be lying in the table of the petitioner’s father was taken by
\nsomebody. The petitioner further states that he got some documents relating to
\nthe complaint and enquiry against the said Kamaraj and Sitibabu which were kept
\nin his table drawer. The further allegation is that a duplicate key of the
\npetitioner’s father room was with the Superintendent and he could have taken the
\npetitioner’s father’s dairy. The petitioner in paragraph 5 of the affidavit had
\nset out certain reasons for suspicion which are extracted as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t5.(a)There are 50 staff working in the Juvenile School and at the time of
\noccurrence 40 of them were on work. My father was attacked and found injured
\nwithin the Juvenile School compound and he was said to be conscious and said to
\nhave stated the names of the students who alleged to have attacked him. When he
\nwas in a state to speak something defiantly he would have raised hue and cry and
\nit is strange none of the staffs had noticed the same.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)My father was found injured around 4.30 p.m. in a serious condition and
\nhe was alive and alleged to have stated the names of the accused who said to
\nhave attacked him. There are number of private hospitals in and around the
\nJuvenile School and he was not taken to any of those private hospitals for the
\nfirst aid and was taken to the Government Hospital which is 6 km away from the
\nJuvenile School.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)Though my father was found in a serious condition, he was taken to the
\nGovernment hospital by the washer man Ganapathy and a student Palanivel. Neither
\nthe Superintendent nor any other higher officials of the home accompanied my
\nfather to the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
\td)My father was working as an Assistant for the Agricultural Sector in the
\nJuvenile Home. But he was admitted in the hospital as a Coolie and it is
\nrecorded in the accident register of the Government hospital.\n<\/p>\n
\te)At the time of occurrence all the 40 employees of the Juvenile Home are
\nsaid to be in the meeting whileso, it is strange how my father Muniasmay a
\nhigher official in the home was not called for the meeting.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)There are guidelines that the inmates shall not allotted with any work.
\nWhile so, how my father Muniasamy was permitted to take the six students with
\nthe permission of the Superintendent.\n<\/p>\n
\tg)My father said to have taken the boys for gardening work and as per the
\nrules the inmates of the School should be locked in the cell at 4.00 pm. While
\nso there is no necessity for holding the boys beyond 4.00 p.m. against the rules
\nfor the purpose of gardening.\n<\/p>\n
\th)The occurrence is said to have taken place around 4.30 p.m. The deceased
\nwould have taken his meal around 2.00 p.m. There is no undigested particles in
\nthe deceased stomach and if the occurrence was taken place at 4.00 pm. or 5.00
\np.m. Then there would have been undigested particles in his stomach.\n<\/p>\n
\ti)The officer Sitibabu was absconding for nearly 20 days after the
\noccurrence and the said Sitibabu had indulged in an illegal activity to escape a
\nstudent from the Juvenile Home prior to 15 days to the incident.\n<\/p>\n
\tj)My father was not taken to the hospital by the Superintendent and other
\nofficers. Even after his death the Superintendent and other staffs did not visit
\nthe hospital to pay homage to my father\n<\/p>\n
\tk)I mentioned all this doubts and handed over all the relevant documents
\nto the fourth respondent on 15.09.2008 but the fourth respondent has not
\nconducted any investigation on the doubts raised by me. The fourth respondent
\nhas not taken note of the illegal activities and homo-sexual activities
\ncontinuing in the Juvenile home. I made a representation to the respondents and
\nto the other higher official through registered post on 10.10.2008. Even then
\nthe investigation is not conducted in a proper manner”.\n<\/p>\n
On these grounds, the petitioner sought for transfer of investigation.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent the allegations
\nmade by the petitioner were denied and it was stated that a complaint was lodged
\nby the Superintendent of the Home on 08.09.2008 at about 6 p.m. soon after
\nadmitting the petitioner’s father in the hospital, based on such complaint the
\ncase was registered. It is submitted that the petitioner’s father was found
\nlying within the premises of the Home with bleeding injuries and when the
\ninjured was enquired he disclosed that he was assaulted by the inmates of the
\nhome and that the above mentioned  six inmates whose names were given by the
\npetitioner’s father who have attacked the petitioner’s father with a spade and
\ntook away Rs.60\/- from  his pocket and they escaped by jumping over the wall.
\nThat the occurrence is to have taken place on 08.09.2008 at about 4.30 p.m and
\nthere is no delay in preferring the complaint or taking him to the hospital. The
\nallegations made regarding other staff working in the home were denied as
\nbaseless.  However, no specific answer has been given to the allegations made
\nagainst the employees who were named by the petitioner in Paragraph 4 of the
\naffidavit filed in support of the writ petition, except for a general denial.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.In the counter affidavit it is further stated that the petitioner never
\ninformed the Investigating Officer that he is going to collect his father
\nbelongings from his office room and he did not seek any help of the police
\nauthority, the investigation was in progress.  Regarding the allegations made in
\nparagraph 5 of the affidavit which have been referred to above, the respondent
\nin reply would submit the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n
\t“a)The averments in para (a) are not correctly stated the injured Munisamy
\nwas found lying in a deserted room with in the school compound. It is situated
\nat the Northern end of the school campus and there is no necessity for any one
\nto go near the place.  It is situated behind a plantain thope.\n<\/p>\n
\t b)The investigation revealed that in the interest of giving best
\ntreatment and the injured being a Government servant he was taken to Thanjavur
\nMedical College Hospital in which latest life saving equipments are available.
\nIt is wrong to state that the Government Hospital is 6 k.m. away from Juvenile
\nschool.  Moreover this being a Medico Legal case they thought fit to take him to
\nGovernment Hospital. Since the private hospitals do not attend Medico Legal
\ncases other allegations in this para are denied.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)The averments in this para are incorrect. The washerman Ganapathy is
\nworking in the school for more than 20 years. He is the person who found the
\ndeceased with bleeding injuries in the deserted room first in point of time. He
\nimmediately reported the matter to the Superintendent and the Superintendent
\nmade arrangements to save the life of the injured. The school used to close by 5
\np.m. and almost everybody was in a hurry to go home. The occurrence was detected
\nat or about 4.30 pm.\n<\/p>\n
\td)The allegation in this para are denied. Though in the A.R.copy the
\ndoctor by oversight written as coolie and later he corrected the same as
\nAgricultural Assistant and put his signature also which is evident on perusal of
\nA.R. Copy.\n<\/p>\n
\te)There was no meeting convened on 08.09.2008. But the inmates are locked
\nin the cell by 4.00 p.m. Since the 6 inmates along with deceased were missing.
\nThe washer man went to call them to return to the cell. But at the Northern End
\ndeserted room he heard a murmuring voice and found the deceased with injuries
\nand he also found blood stains from the place where the boys were engaged in
\ngardening work to the deserted room. There was a long wooden log with the help
\nof which the students jumped over the wall and escaped from the school.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)The Superintendent did not state about any guide line as stated by the
\npetitioner. During investigation it came to light that the Superintendent can
\nexercise his discretionary power according to circumstances taking into account
\nthe safety of the inmates of the school.  As such, the averments are not correct
\nand are denied.\n<\/p>\n
\tg)It is true that the inmates of the school should be locked in the cell
\nat 4.00 p.m.. But on that day that is on 08.09.2008 the six boys along with the
\ndeceased Agricultural Assistant Munisamy did not return from the place of their
\ngardening work at 4.00 p.m. Hence, the washer man went to call them but he found
\nthe blood stains and the injured alone in the deserted room at the Northern End
\nof the school. Then he reported the same to the Superintendent.\n<\/p>\n
\th)Surmises and conjectures cannot take the place of proof whether the
\ndeceased Munisamy took meals or Tiffin or remained with empty stomach is not
\nspoken by any of the witnesses examined. The entire occurrence was narrated by
\nthe injured the deceased himself. Hence, the petitioner cannot presume things as
\nsuch the averments in this para are denied.\n<\/p>\n
\ti)The averments in this para are denied. The officer sitibabu was
\navailable for interrogation. No complaint was received by the then Investigating
\nOfficer regarding any illegal activity of the officer sitibabu.\n<\/p>\n
\tj)I am not concerned with the averments made in this paragraph as such I
\nhave no comments on this statement of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\tk)The petitioner was examined on 09.09.2008.His mother was also examined
\non 09.09.2008. But they did not state anything during their interrogation. The
\ninvestigation is over in this case and the charge sheet has also been produced
\nbefore the concerned Court”.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Based on above such averment, the fourth respondent prayed for dismissal
\nof the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 14.03.2009, a status report
\nwas filed by the fourth respondent Police. In the said report, after narrating
\nabout the incident which took place on 08.09.2008 and  the complaint lodged by
\nthe Superintendent, the fourth respondent submitted that the case was taken up
\nfor investigation and the Investigating Officer rushed to the spot along with
\nthe police party, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar
\nand Rough Sketch and also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.
\nIt is further submitted that on 09.09.2008 at about 15.00 hours out of the six
\ninmates, the accused Singaravel and Thandayuthapani who are alleged to have
\ncommitted the offence were arrested at the Thanjavur New Bus stand. On
\ninterrogation, Singaravel gave voluntary confession and after recording his
\nstatement, on the same day both of them were produced before the Judicial
\nMagistrate No.3, Thanjavur and were kept in the Juvenile Home, Chennai.  On
\n13.09.2008 at about 11.00 hours, the other inmates, Venkatesan @ Venkatesh and
\nRajesh were arrested at Old Bus Stand and had also given confession which was
\nrecorded and they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Thanjavur
\nand thereafter, kept in the Juvenile Home, Chennai. On 18.09.2008, the accused
\nKarl Marx  surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and kept
\nin Juvenile Home, Chennai on the same day.  The other inmate Selvam is still
\nabsconding and the case has been charged on 26.11.2008 before the Court of
\nJuvenile Justice Board, Thanjavur and the same is yet to be taken on file.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.In the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition, the
\npetitioner has filed a copy of a report of the Enquiry Officer who conducted an
\nenquiry into the charges framed against the Sitibabu, who is an employee of the
\nJuvenile Home, and by relying upon this, the learned counsel for the petitioner
\nwould submit that the allegations raised by him in the affidavit are
\nsubstantiated.\tAnother document which is found in the typed set of papers is
\nan unsigned, undated, hand written note wherein certain allegations have been
\nmade stating that the said employees of the home have been abusing the Juveniles
\nin the home. Learned counsel would further submit that pointing out all these
\nfactors, he had submitted a representation to the Director General of Police on
\n10.10.2008 and since no action was taken to transfer the investigation, the
\npresent writ petition came to be filed.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Heard  Mr.B.Pugalendhi, leanred counsel for the petitioner and
\nMr.D.Gandhiraj, learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the
\nmaterials available on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The learned counsel for the petitioner after narrating in detail about
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, submitted that the petitioner has
\nserious doubt on the Superintendent and other officers and particularly the said
\nKamaraj and Sitibabu, employed in the home and that he has set out his
\napprehension by specifically pointing out the instances in paragraph 5(a) to (k)
\nof the affidavit. Further, the learned counsel would submit that in spite of the
\npetitioner pointing out all his apprehensions to the fourth respondent on
\n15.09.2008 with relevant documents, the fourth respondent has not conducted any
\ninvestigation on the doubts raised by the petitioner. Further, the fourth
\nrespondent has not taken note of the illegal activities and homosexual
\nactivities continuing the Juvenile Home. The representation submitted by the
\npetitioner on 10.10.2008 by registered post has not been considered by the
\nrespondents and the other higher officials. Therefore, the learned counsel
\nsubmits that the petitioner has approached this Court for change of
\ninvestigating agency. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgement of
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Divine Retreat Centre Vs.State of Kerala  reported
\nin AIR 2008 SC 1614, and by relying on the observations in paragraphs 35 and 36,
\nwould submit that this Court has sufficient power to transfer investigation
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution at the instance of an aggrieved person
\nwhen the investigation is not proper, especially on the facts of the present
\ncase.  The learned counsel also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of
\nthis Court reported in 2007(1) CTC 273 (S.Radha Mony Vs. The Home Secretary,
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu) and would contend that to meet the ends of justice
\ninvestigation should be transferred to the CBCID. The learned Government
\nAdvocate on the other hand while reiterating the averments made in the counter
\naffidavit, would submit that the petitioner has not pointed out any deviation in
\nthe investigation, no specific lapses have been pointed out on the part of the
\ninvestigating agency and the petitioner has not stated that the accused have
\nbeen falsely implicated.  It is further submitted that open minded investigation
\nstarted from the statement of the deceased which is the basis of the FIR
\nregistered in the case. The learned Government Advocate relied on the decision
\nof the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering
\nServices, U.P. and others Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another reported in 2002 (5)
\nSCC 521 and stated that transfer cannot be done as a matter of routine merely
\nbecause a party makes some such allegations and prayed for dismissal of the writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The issue which has arisen for consideration in the present writ
\npetition is that whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case
\ntransfer of investigation could be ordered as sought for by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.Before proceeding to answer this question I propose to analyse the law
\non the subject.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 1992 (1) SCC 397
\n(Gudalure M.J.Cherian and others Vs. Union of India and others) was dealing with
\na petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which was filed as a
\nPIL, regarding the rape two nuns at Gajraula in Uttar Pradesh wherein the
\npetitioners contend that the investigation of the case should be entrusted to
\nthe Central Bureau of Investigation. After discussing about the factual
\naverments in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
\ninvestigation having been completed by the Police and charge sheet submitted to
\nthe Court, it is not for the Supreme Court, ordinarily, to reopen the
\ninvestigation specially by entrusting the same to a specialised agency like CBI.
\nThe Supreme Court further observed that they were conscious, that of late the
\ndemand for CBI investigation even in police cases is on the increase.
\nNevertheless in a given situation, to do justice between the parties and to
\ninstil confidence in the public mind, it may become necessary to ask the CBI to
\ninvestigate a crime as it only shows the efficiency and the independence of the
\nagency. Therefore, in the light of the averments made and keeping in view the
\nfacts and circumstances of the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
\nthat ends of justice would be met if the CBI is directed to hold further
\ninvestigation in respect of the offences committed.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2004 (7) SCC 768 (Gangadhar Janardan
\nMhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) was dealing with the legality of the
\norder passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing a criminal
\nwrit petition filed seeking for a direction to transfer  of investigation from
\nState CID to any other impartial investigating agency. While considering the
\nquestion of maintainability of the writ petition for such relief, the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“13.When the information is laid with the police, but no action in that
\nbehalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with
\nSection 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having
\njurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to
\nenquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the
\nMagistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing
\nprocess to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to
\ninvestigate into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report.
\nIf he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further
\naction, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code.
\nIn case he finds that the complaint\/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an
\noffence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue
\nprocess to the accused. These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All
\nIndia Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
4. It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be
\nentertained.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.The inevitable conclusion is that the High Court’s order does not
\nsuffer from any infirmity. The writ application was not the proper remedy, and
\nwithout availing the remedy available under the Code, the appellant could not
\nhave approached the High Court by filing a writ application”.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.In 2002 (5) SCC 521 (Secretary Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering
\nServices, U.P. and others Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another), which was relied on
\nby the learned Government Advocate, the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided on the
\nquestion as to when the High Court cannot direct enquiry by CBI by exercising
\nits power under Article 226 has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226
\nto direct an inquiry by CBI, the said power can be exercised only in cases where
\nthere is sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a
\nneed for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such material in the
\npleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration
\nof such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before it is
\nsufficient to direct such an inquiry by CBI. This is a requirement which is
\nclearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in the case of Common Cause1.
\nThis Court in the said judgment at paragraph 174 of the Report has held thus:
\n(SCC p. \t750, para 174)
\n“174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate ‘any
\nother offence’ is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction
\nfor investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have
\nbeen committed or a person’s involvement is prima facie established, but a
\ndirection to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or
\nnot cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept
\nand philosophy of ‘life’ and ‘liberty’ guaranteed to a person under Article 21
\nof the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions
\nof this Court in which the concept of ‘life’ has been explained in a manner
\nwhich has infused ‘life’ into the letters of Article 21.”\n<\/p>\n
\t6.It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to life
\nunder Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without being hounded by
\nthe police or CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is living
\nas a law-abiding citizen. Therefore, it is clear that a decision to direct an
\ninquiry by CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court after
\nconsidering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does
\ndisclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other
\nsimilar agency, and the same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely
\nbecause a party makes some such allegations. In the instant case, we see that
\nthe High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that there is a prima
\nfacie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded on the basis of “ifs”
\nand “buts” and thought it appropriate that the inquiry should be made by CBI.
\nWith respect, we think that this is not what is required by the law as laid down
\nby this Court in the case of Common Cause1″.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.In Sasi Thomas Vs. State and others reported in 2006(12) SCC 421, the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of interference with criminal,
\ntrials held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“26.The High Court or this Court in exercise of the said power is entitled
\nto reach injustice wherever it is found. But, it is not a case where cognizance
\nhad not been taken. It is not even a case where a direction under sub-section
\n(8) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be issued at this
\nstage. It is also not a case, in our opinion, to interfere with the trial of the
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
\t33.Such a direction, thus, can be issued where there had been complete
\nfailure of justice and in a case where the investigating and prosecuting
\nagencies were found to have not performed their role in the manner they were
\nexpected to do”.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.,<\/a>(2007) 4 Crimes 338 SC, the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court while   discussing the scope of interference in criminal matters
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India and when High Court can direct
\nenquiry by CBI has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“33.In Secy., Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram
\nArya15 (SCC vide para 6) this Court observed that although the High Court has
\npower to order a CBI inquiry, that power should only be exercised if the High
\nCourt after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such
\nmaterial discloses prima facie a case calling for investigation by CBI or by any
\nother similar agency. A CBI inquiry cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or
\nmerely because the party makes some allegation.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.In the present case, we are of the opinion that the material on record
\ndoes not disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI. The
\nmere allegation of the appellant that his son was murdered because he had
\ndiscovered some corruption cannot, in our opinion, justify a CBI inquiry,
\nparticularly when inquiries were held by the army authorities as well as by GRP
\nat Mathura, which revealed that it was a case of suicide”.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.In Divine Retreat Centre Vs.State of Kerala   reported in AIR 2008 SC
\n1614, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt dealt with the scope, content and ambit of the inherent power conferred on
\nthe High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1974. While dealing with the said
\nquestion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
\n\t“33.The sum and substance of the above deliberation and analysis of the
\nlaw cited leads us to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation of an
\noffence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers
\nin that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the
\ncognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the
\nprovisions under Chapter XII of the Code. However, we may hasten to add that
\nunfettered discretion does not mean any unaccountable or unlimited discretion
\nand act according to one’s own choice. The power to investigate must be
\nexercised strictly on the condition of which that power is granted by the Code
\nitself.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.In our view, the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
\ncannot change the investigating officer in the midstream and appoint any agency
\nof its own choice to investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis and more
\nparticularly on the basis of complaints or anonymous petitions addressed to a
\nnamed Judge. Such communications cannot be converted into suo motu proceedings
\nfor setting the law in motion. Neither are the accused nor the complainant or
\ninformant entitled to choose their own investigating agency to investigate a
\ncrime in which they may be interested.\n<\/p>\n
\t35.It is altogether a different matter that the High Court in exercise of
\nits power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can always issue
\nappropriate directions at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court
\nis convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an
\ninvestigating officer mala fide. That power is to be exercised in the rarest of
\nthe rare case where a clear case of abuse of power and non-compliance with the
\nprovisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring
\nthe interference of the High Court. But even in such cases, the High Court
\ncannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can
\nalways insist for the observance of process as provided for in the Code.\n<\/p>\n
\t36….\n<\/p>\n
\t37….\n<\/p>\n
\t38.One of the documents enclosed to the anonymous petition is a magazine
\nby name Divine Voice published by the appellant. In one of the volumes published
\nin June 2005 the names of senior IAS and IPS officers were mentioned as the
\nmembers of the Advisory Board; one such named officer is stated to have decided
\nsome matter in favour of the appellant. The High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.
\n22543 of 2005 made some observations to the effect that the said officer was
\nreally associated with the appellant Centre and the order passed by that officer
\nin favour of the appellant is a nullity. Thereafter the name of that officer was
\ndeleted from the names of persons of the Advisory Board. Based on such vague and
\nindefinite allegations the High Court gave the following directions without even
\nissuing notice to the appellant:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) The Government shall issue notification under Section 17 of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act conferring power to the special investigation team
\nconstituted by the Court to investigate the offences under the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act;\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) The special investigation team shall also inquire into the
\nallegations of foreign exchange violation;\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) The special investigation team shall also inquire into the
\nallegations of unnatural deaths stated in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t40.On a careful perusal of the order passed by the learned Judge, we find
\nthat the learned Judge initiated suo motu proceedings without even examining as
\nto whether the contents of the anonymous letter and material sent along with it
\ndisclosed any prima facie case for ordering an investigation. The question is:
\ncan investigation be ordered by the High Court in exercise of its inherent
\njurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code based on such vague and indefinite
\nallegations made in unsigned petition without even arriving at any prima facie
\nconclusion that the contents thereof reveal commission of any cognizable
\noffence? Whether such directions could have been issued by the High Court even
\nin exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?\n<\/p>\n
\t43.It is evident from Sections 154, 156 and 157 of the Code that even a
\npolice officer can act on the basis of information received or otherwise and
\nproceed to investigate provided he has reason to suspect the commission of a
\ncognizable offence which he is empowered to investigate under Section 156 Cr.PC.
\nIf the essential requirements of the penal provisions are not prima facie
\ndisclosed by a first information report and the police officer has no reason to
\nsuspect the commission of a cognizable offence, no investigation can be
\nundertaken by him based on the information received or otherwise. Can the High
\nCourt set the law in motion against the named and unnamed individuals based on
\nthe information received by it without recording the reasons that the
\ninformation received by it prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable
\noffence? Setting criminal law in motion is fraught with serious consequences,
\nwhich cannot lightly be undertaken by the High Court even in exercise of its
\njurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the
\nHigh Court in exercise of its whatsoever jurisdiction cannot direct
\ninvestigation by constituting a special investigation team on the strength of
\nanonymous petitions. The High Courts cannot be converted into station houses.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.A Division Bench of this Court in Alliraj Gounder Vs.The Inspector of
\nPolice, Udumalpet Town Police Station, Udumalpet, Coimbatore District and
\nanother reported in 2005 (3) CTC 673 also dealt with a writ petition seeking for
\ntransfer of investigation wherein the Division Bench of this Court after relying
\nupon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.B.I. Vs. Rajesh Gandhi
\nreported in 1997 Crl.L.J. 63,  held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“4.Moreover if the writ petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation
\nbeing done by the police, he has a remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned
\nunder Section 156(3), Cr.P.C vide H.S.Bains Vs. State, AIR 1980 SC 1883, and if
\nthe said Magistrate is satisfied about the allegations of the petitioner, he can
\ndirect the police agency which he deems to be appropriate to do the proper
\ninvestigation into the complaint of the petitioner, and he can also monitor the
\npolice investigation.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Sub-section (3) of Section 156, in other words, provides a check by the
\nMagistrates on the duties to be performed by the police under Chapter XII,
\nCr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its
\nduty of investigating the case at all or has not done it satisfactorily, he can
\nissue a direction for the police to do it properly or do it again, and\/or issue
\nsuch other directions to the police as he deems appropriate for securing a
\nproper investigation into the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Thus, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section
\n156(3), which he should avail of by approaching the Magistrate. Writ petitions
\nof this nature should not be entertained by this Court in view of the existence
\nof the appropriate efficacious alternative remedy under the Criminal Procedure
\nCode itself, otherwise this Court will be flooded with such writ petitions”.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.In Asit Bhattacharjee Vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha and others reported in
\n2007(5) SCC 786, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has dealt with the
\nscope of the interference in criminal matters under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India  as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“33.Stricto sensu, therefore, the High Court should not have issued such a
\ndirection. Assuming, however, that the High Court could mould the relief, in our
\nopinion, it was not a case where on the face of the allegations made in the
\ncomplaint petition, the same could be said to be mala fide. A major part of the
\ncause of action might have arisen in the State of U.P., but the same by itself
\nwould not mean that the Calcutta Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever”.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.Thus, based on the above referred judgments, the following could be
\nculled out:\n<\/p>\n
\t“i)That the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
\nalways be invoked to issue appropriate directions at the instance of an
\naggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation
\nhas been exercised by an Investigating Officer mala fide.\n<\/p>\n
\tii)That power of the High Court is to be exercised in rarest of rare cases
\nwhere a clear case of abuse of power and non compliance with the provisions
\nfalling under Chapter XII  of the Code is clearly made  out requiring the
\ninterference of the High Court. But even in such cases, the High court cannot
\ndirect as to how the investigation has to be conducted but can always  insist
\nfor observation of process as provided under the Code.\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)None can dispute the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution to direct inquiry by CBI, the said power can be exercised only in
\ncases where there is sufficient material to come to a conclusion that there is
\nneed for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such materials in the
\npleadings.\n<\/p>\n
\tiv)Setting the criminal liability and fraught with serious consequences
\nwhich cannot lightly be taken by the High Court even in exercise of its
\njurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
\tv)The High Court in exercise of its whatsoever  jurisdiction cannot direct
\ninvestigation by constituting a Special Investigation Team on the strength of
\nvague allegations”.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.Based on the above legal principles, if we examine the case on hand, it
\nis to be noted that the principal ground on which the petitioner has sought for
\ntransfer of investigation is based on the allegations regarding the conduct of
\nfew employees of the Juvenile Home who are said to have misused the children in
\nthe home and that there is some record to show the disciplinary action was taken
\nagainst one of the employees of the home.  That apart, the petitioner has
\nendeavoured to state that there is a suspicion in the manner and cause of death
\nof his father and by relying upon the working pattern of the home, the
\npetitioner would state that the case as presented in the compliant before the
\npolice is not true.  Based on the above averments and those which have been
\nextracted above, the petitioner states that the fourth respondent has not
\nconducted any investigation on the doubts raised by the petitioner and that the
\nfourth respondent has not taken note of the illegal activities said to have been
\ncontinuing in the Juvenile Home.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.As noted above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has added a word of caution
\nthat the power of transfer of investigation could be exercised only in the
\nrarest of rare cases and such power should not be exercised  to stifle a
\nlegitimate prosecution and the  High Court should refrain from giving a prima
\nfacie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and evidence has
\nnot been collected and produced before the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
\nfurther held that based on vague and indefinite allegations, the High court
\nought not to have issued directions for transfer of investigation or for
\nordering investigation by any other special investigating body.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.If the allegations made by the petitioner,  if found to be correct, is
\nwholly unpalatable; the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not sufficient
\nto have materials in the pleadings, the requirement being on consideration of
\nsuch pleadings, the Court should come to the conclusion that there are
\nsufficient materials for ordering transfer of investigation. As rightly pointed
\nout by the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner has not pointed out any
\nspecific lapse on the part of the investigating agencies and that it has not
\nbeen stated that the accused have been falsely implicated. The allegation being
\nthat the fourth respondent has not taken note of the various doubts raised by
\nthe petitioner relating to certain happenings in the Juvenile home, and
\ntherefore, the investigation is not proper. If these allegations are put to
\nscrutiny on the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the decision
\nreferred supra, these are not sufficient material for the court to come to a
\nconclusion that there is need for transfer of the investigation agency. As held
\nby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divine Retreat Centre Vs.State of
\nKerala  referred supra, that the investigation of an offence is the field
\nexclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are
\nunfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is
\nlegitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions under Chapter
\nXII of the Code. However, unfettered discretion does not mean any unaccountable
\nor unlimited discretion and act according to one’s own choice. The High Court in
\nexercise of its inherent jurisdiction cannot change the Investigating Officer in
\nthe mid-stream and appoint any agency of its own choice to investigate into a
\ncrime on whatsoever basis and more particularly on the basis of complaints or
\nanonymous petitions. Further, it is to be noted that in the instant case the
\nmatter has been placed before the Juvenile Justice  Act, 2000. Therefore,
\nconsidering the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the law laid
\ndown by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is to be held that the doubts raised by
\nthe petitioner in his representation and the affidavit are not sufficient to
\nmake out a case for transfer of investigation to any other agency.  Therefore,
\nthe prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and the writ petition
\nis liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.Rabindranath Tagore said:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Every time a child is born
\n\t It brings with it the hope
\n\t That God is not yet
\n\t Disappointed with man”.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.The  Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,  2000
\n(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Juvenile Justice Act’) was enacted as an Act to
\nconsolidate and amend the law relating to juveniles in conflict with law and
\nchildren in need of care and protection, by providing for proper care,
\nprotection and treatment by catering to their development needs, and by adopting
\na child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the
\nbest interest of children and for their ultimate rehabilitation and for matters
\nconnected therewith or incidental thereto.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.The erstwhile Madras Presidency presently the State of Tamil Nadu
\nduring the pre-independence days, was a forerunner to promulgate their codified
\nlaws on children namely, Madras Children Act, 1920, this law was intended to
\ndissociate the children community from the hardships of the laws applicable to
\ntheir adult counterparts. Some correctional measures, rehabilitation programme,
\nvocational training for the children coming in conflict with the law were
\nhighlighted.  The Union Government passed the Children  Act during 1960 to cater
\nto the needs of the Union Territories which later became the model enactment on
\nchildren in India. On 20th November 1959, the General Assembly of the United
\nNations met in a plenary session with representatives of 78 countries and
\nadopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child unanimously. India was a
\nparty to such declaration. India as being a party to such declaration, during
\nAugust 1974, evolved a national policy for welfare of children.  On the 106th
\nbirthday of Mahatma Gandhi, on 2nd October 1975, the Integrated Child
\nDevelopment Services (ICDS), a child welfare scheme was born. The 6th
\nU.N.Congress on Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Juvenile Offenders was held
\nat Venezuela and rules were framed which could be treated as model for treatment
\nof the juvenile offenders.  The 7th United Congress on Prevention of Crime and
\nTreatment of Juvenile Offenders was held during  September 1985, at Milan,
\nItaly, the Social Council to the 7th Congress presented the United Nations
\nStandard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice known as
\nBeijing Rules and were approved on 06.09.1985.  The General Assembly adopted
\nsuch Rules on 29.11.1985 as General Assembly Resolution and it was resolved that
\nall the participant countries would adapt those Rules in their juvenile justice
\nsystem through their respective national legal coverage and administrative
\nfollow up. On 29.11.1985, the Secretary General of the United Nations requested
\nthe Member States to undertake research and to develop a data base for
\nimplementing effective administration on juvenile justice.  The Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt in Sheela Barse Vs. Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 596 ordered that the
\njustice delivery system suitable for juvenile offenders should be enforced on
\nall States and such enforcement was to be reported back to the Supreme Court.
\nDuring 1986, India as a participant State to the U.N. resolutions, as noted
\nabove, also addressed itself the duties and obligations enshrined in Articles
\n39(e) and 39(f) of the Constitution of India as well as the Beijing Rules.
\nAccordingly, the new enactment namely, Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 came to be
\n“born” and received the assent of the President on 01.12.1986. The United Nation
\non 30.09.1980 urged the Presidents and Prime Ministers from all over the world
\nto decide about the protection of juvenile deprived of their liberty.  With this
\nback ground, the Official Bill No.149 of 2000 was introduced in the 13th Lok
\nSabha in its 5th Session on 22.11.2000 and after appropriate discussions from
\n15th to 18th December, the Lok Sabha adopted the same. The RajyaSabha also in
\nits 191st Session during 19th and 20th December 2000 passed the same and the
\nPresident of India assented on 30.12.2000 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and
\nProtection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of 2000) came into existence repealing the
\nAct, 1986 (1953 of 1986).\n<\/p>\n
Thus, this special enactment which seeks to achieve the duties and obligations
\nenshrined under Articles 39(e) and 39(f) of the Constitution of India has
\nnecessitated this Court to embark upon this exercise.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.The following provisions of the Act would be relevant:\n<\/p>\n
(e)”Children’s Home” means an institution established by a State Government or
\nby a voluntary organisation and certified by that Government under Section 34;\n<\/p>\n
(h)”fit institution’ means a governmental or a registered non governmental
\norganisation or a voluntary organisation prepared to own the responsibility of a
\nchild and such organisation is found fit by the State Government on the
\nrecommendation of the competent authority.\n<\/p>\n
(k)”juvenile’ or ‘child’ means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of
\nage\n<\/p>\n
(l)”juvenile in conflict with law’ means a juvenile who is alleged to have
\ncommitted an offence and has not completed eighteenth year of age as on the date
\nof commission of such offence\n<\/p>\n
(o)”observation home’ means a home established by a State Government or by a
\nvoluntary organisation and certified by that State Government under Section 8 as
\nan observation home for the juvenile in conflict with law;
\n(Q)”place of safety” means any place or institution (not being a police lock-up
\nor jail), the person in charge of which is willing temporarily to receive and
\ntake care of the juvenile and which, in the opinion of the competent authority,
\nmay be a place of safety for the juvenile;\n<\/p>\n
(v)”special home’ means an institution established by a State Government or by a
\nvoluntary organisation and certified by that Government under Section 9″;\n<\/p>\n
\t29.Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice Act deals with observation homes.
\nSection 8(4) speaks of classification of the juvenile for the purpose of care
\nand protection by dividing them into three groups consisting of children under
\nthe age group of seven to twelve years, twelve to sixteen years and sixteen to
\neighteen years.\n<\/p>\n
\t30.Section 34  of the Juvenile Justice Act deals with Children’s Homes and
\nthe State Government may establish and maintain either by itself or in
\nassociation with the voluntary organisations, children’s homes, in every
\ndistrict or group or districts, as the case may be, for the reception  of child
\nin need of care and protection during the pendency of any inquiry and
\nsubsequently for their care, treatment, education, training, development and
\nrehabilitation. Sub Section 2 of Section 34 deals with the power of State of
\nGovernment to frame Rules for the management of such homes including the
\nstandards and nature of services to be provided thereunder. The amended sub
\nSection 3 of Section 34 mandates that all institutions,  whether the State
\nGovernment run or those run by voluntary organisations for children in need of
\ncare and protection shall, within a period of six months from the date of
\ncommencement of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment
\nAct, 2006, be registered under this Act in such manner as may be prescribed.
\nSection 37 deals with Shelter homes for juveniles or children which shall
\nfunction as drop-in-centres for the children in the need of urgent support.
\n(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\t31.In terms of Section 62, the Central or a State Government may
\nconstitute a Central or a State advisory board to advise the Government on
\nmatter relating to the establishment and maintenance of the homes, mobilisation
\nof resources, provision of facilities for education, training and rehabilitation
\nof child in need of care and protection and juvenile in conflict with law and
\nco-ordination among the various official and non official agencies agencies.
\nSuch Advisory Board in terms of sub Section 2 of Section 62 include eminent
\nsocial workers, representatives of voluntary organisation in the field of child
\nwelfare, corporate sector, academicians, medical professional etc. (Emphasis
\nsupplied)<\/p>\n
\t32.Section 62-A came to be inserted under the amending Act which
\ncontemplates Constitution of Child Protection Unit responsible for the
\nimplementation of the Act and under such provision, every State Government shall
\nconstitute a Child Protection Unit for the State and such units for every
\ndistrict consisting of such officers and other employees as may be appointed by
\nthe Government to take up matters relating to children in need of care and
\nprotection and juveniles in conflict with law with a view to ensure the
\nimplementation of this Act including the establishment and maintenance of homes,
\nnotification of competent authorities in relation to these children and their
\nrehabilitation and co-ordination with various official and non-official
\nagencies. (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\t33.Thus, the above statutory provisions  provide sufficient safeguard for
\njuveniles who are in conflict with law and the facilities to be provided to them
\nand as to how, they have to be maintained and monitored. It has to be borne in
\nmind that this special statute has used expression “home” under the statute
\nwhile defining the place where the Juvenile have to be placed. Therefore, while
\nenacting the statute, it was kept in mind that these children who require
\nspecial care and protection and the juveniles who are in conflict with law
\nshould be placed in a safe and healthy atmosphere with the intention to reform
\nthese children and to make them normal citizens.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.Rule-22 of the Tamil Nadu Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
\nChildren) Rules, 2001 deals with Establishment of Observation Home which is
\nessentially to classify the boys and girls who are admitted to the home based on
\ntheir age. Rule 23 deals with the objective of the home which reads as
\nhereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“23.Objective of the Home:- (1)The study and observation of a child made
\nduring his stay in the Home forms the basis for planning the best interest of
\nthe child. During his stay in Home, the child shall be oriented on the Rights.
\n\t(2)The Home shall make necessary arrangements for the child to be heard
\nand enquired by professionally trained Social Worker or Probation Officer or
\nCase Worker or Psychologists or Counsellor to assess the personality of the
\nchild.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3)The Home shall arrange for receiving non-formal education and
\nfunctional literacy during the stay and facilitate the child to become literate.
\n\t(4)The Home shall help the child to build his self confidence and self
\nesteem to understand his potentialities and limitations.
\n\t(5)The Home shall provide proper health care and health education”.
\n\t\t\t(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
\t35.Similarly, the Special homes and Objective of Special home are dealt
\nwith under Rules 33 and 34. A perusal of these provisions show that these homes
\nformed the basis for planning the best interest of the child during his or her
\nstay in the home and the homes are required to make arrangements for the child
\nto be heard and enquired by professionally trained Social Worker or Probation
\nOfficer or Case Worker or Psychologists or Counsellor to assess the personality
\nof the child. They should be given non formal education and functional literacy
\nduring the stay to facilitate the child to become literate.  The home shall help
\nthe child to build his self confidence and self esteem to understand
\npotentialities and limitations and shall provide proper health care and health
\neducation.\n<\/p>\n
\t36.It is disheartening to note about that the allegations which have been
\nstated in the affidavit filed along with the above writ petition more
\nparticularly, the enquiry report submitted by an Enquiry Officer against one of
\nthe employees of the Juvenile Home at Thanjavur, namely one Sitibabu. It is true
\nthat this Court is not called upon to decide upon the veracity of such enquiry
\nreport or as to whether the said employee was guilty of the charge.  But at the
\nsame time, it is prima facie established that a  charge came to be framed
\nagainst the employee Sitibabu making allegations against him that he had
\nsexually exploited the children at the Juvenile home at Thanjavur and there is
\nno record placed to know about the ultimate result of such departmental action.
\nBe that as it may, considering the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed
\nthereunder and above all, the object behind the statute, I deem it appropriate
\nthat this is a fit case where an enquiry should be ordered into the functioning
\nof the Juvenile Home at Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n
\t37.As stated above, the statute provides for sufficient safeguards and
\nonerous duties and responsibilities have been placed upon the persons
\nfunctioning under the Act. Therefore, I direct the Secretary to the Government,
\nSocial Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department to constitute a committee
\nconsisting of three members and conduct a detailed enquiry into the facilities
\navailable in the Juvenile home, at Thanjavur, the health condition of the
\nchildren in the home and whether there are any instances of exploitation or
\nabuse of children at the home and whether there have been any earlier incidents
\nof exploitation or abuse and if so, what action was taken and all other matters
\nwhich are incidental to such enquiry and submit a report to the State Advisory
\nBoard within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
\norder. The Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal
\nProgramme Department, is requested to ensure that while constituting the
\ncommittee one member shall be a nominee of the State Government, the second
\nmember shall be an eminent social worker having special interest in matters of
\njuvenile care and protection and the third member shall be a person who is
\neither running or in charge of a voluntary organisation in the field of child
\nwelfare.\n<\/p>\n
\tRegistry is directed to communicate this order to the Secretary to the
\nGovernment, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department.
\nNo costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
sms<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Commissioner,
\n  Social Welfare Department,
\n  Ezhilagam,
\n  Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Director General of Police,
\n  CBCID
\n  Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Superintendent of Police
\n  Tanjore District,
\n  Tanjore.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Tanjore Town Police Station,
\n  Tanjore.\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M.Karthikeyan vs The Commissioner on 31 August, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31\/08\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.10127 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 M.Karthikeyan … Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai. 2.The Director General of Police, CBCID Chennai. 3.The Superintendent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139803","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.Karthikeyan vs The Commissioner on 31 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Karthikeyan vs The Commissioner on 31 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-11T10:49:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"45 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Karthikeyan vs The Commissioner on 31 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-11T10:49:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":8918,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009\",\"name\":\"M.Karthikeyan vs The Commissioner on 31 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-11T10:49:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Karthikeyan vs The Commissioner on 31 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.Karthikeyan vs The Commissioner on 31 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Karthikeyan vs The Commissioner on 31 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-11T10:49:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"45 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Karthikeyan vs The Commissioner on 31 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-11T10:49:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009"},"wordCount":8918,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009","name":"M.Karthikeyan vs The Commissioner on 31 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-11T10:49:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-karthikeyan-vs-the-commissioner-on-31-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Karthikeyan vs The Commissioner on 31 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139803","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=139803"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139803\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139803"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139803"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139803"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}