{"id":18196,"date":"2006-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006"},"modified":"2015-01-19T06:28:26","modified_gmt":"2015-01-19T00:58:26","slug":"m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"M.Savarlguru vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M.Savarlguru vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 February, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 03\/02\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA       \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN             \n\nW.P.No.38503 of 2003  \n\n1. The Inspector General of Police\n    Law & Order, Chennai-4.\n\n2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police\n    Tiruchirapalli Range\n    Tiruchirapalli.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. M.Savarlguru\n\n2. The Registrar\n    Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal\n    Chennai-104.                        ..               Respondents\n\n\n        PRAYER:   Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia for the issue of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining\nto the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai,  the  second\nrespondent  herein,  made  in O.A.No.4836 of 2002 dated 13.3.2003 and to quash\nthe same. \n\n!For petitioner                         :       Mr.S.Gomathi Nayagam\n                                                Special Government Pleader\n\n^For 1st respondent                     :       Mr.Bala representing\n                                                M\/s.Bala & Daisy\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
        The  second respondent in the writ petition is a direct recruit to the
\npost of Sub Inspector of Police.  He was charge-sheeted under Rule 3(b) of the
\nTamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal)  Rules,  1955,
\non  the  ground of “reprehensible conduct and spoiling the morale of the post,
\nby having illicit intimacy with one Malathi, wife  of  one  Vijayan;  that  he
\ntried  to  seduce one Rani alias Maragatha Rani, daughter of Vijayan; the said
\nRani attempted to commit suicide” (Page 2 of the affidavit).  On the complaint
\nreceived by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,  an  enquiry  was  conducted,
\nleading to  a prima facie case against the first respondent.  In the course of
\nthe departmental proceedings, the prosecution  witnesses  turned  hostile  and
\nwent  against  their  statement  previously  given  at the time of preliminary
\nenquiry before the enquiry officer.  Taking note of the  complaint  given  and
\nthe  statement  by  the  witnesses  at  the  time  of  preliminary enquiry and
\nconsidering the fact that such conduct was detrimental to the  good  image  of
\nsuch  disciplined uniformed forces, the delinquent was awarded a punishment of
\ndismissal from service by the  Deputy  Inspector  General  of  Police,  Trichy
\nRange, in his proceedings dated 28 .7.2002.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   Aggrieved  of  the  said  order  passed  by the second petitioner
\nherein, the delinquent officer, the first respondent  in  the  writ  petition,
\nmoved  an  Original  Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
\nand sought for a quashing of the order dated  28.7.2002  and  to  consequently
\ndirect  the  writ  petitioners  to reinstate the first respondent into service
\nwith all benefits therein.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The applicant in  the  O.A.\/the  first  respondent  in  this  writ
\npetition  contended  before the Tribunal that the evidence adduced at the time
\nof  enquiry  ought  to  have  been  given  its  due  weightage  and  that  the
\ndisciplinary  authorities erred in placing reliance on the statements given at
\nthe time of preliminary enquiry to impose a major punishment.  Thus the  first
\nrespondent  submitted  that  the  whole  proceedings  was  in violation of the
\nprinciples of natural justice.  The first respondent further submitted that he
\nought not to have been punished on mere suspicion without  any  proof  of  the
\ncharge.   The  first respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme
\nCourt of this Court in 1979-L.W.  428), and AIR 1966 SC 1827 to impress on the
\nfact that the order passed merely on suspicion was liable to be quashed.   The
\nfirst  respondent  submitted that there was no fair and reasonable enquiry and
\nthat the punishment imposed  was  disproportionate;  hence,  contrary  to  the
\nprinciples laid down by the Apex Court in (2000) 3 SCC 450.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  contention  of the first respondent was resisted by the writ
\npetitioners before the Tribunal emphasizing the fact that the issue related to
\nthe morality and chastity of the complainant-witnesses and hence,  considering
\nthe  surrounding circumstances, the statement given at the time of preliminary
\nenquiry should be  given  their  due  weightage  in  the  matter  of  awarding
\npunishment,  particularly  to  a  delinquent  who was working in a disciplined
\nservice, namely, Police force.  The writ petitioner further submitted in their
\nreply before the Tribunal that the punishment was awarded after  a  conclusive
\nfinding and  this  was  not on mere assumption or presumption.  The petitioner
\nfurther submitted that the first respondent was a direct recruit Sub Inspector
\nof  Police  and  had  misbehaved  with  the  members  of  the  family  of  his
\nsubordinates  and  that the conduct of the first respondent was detrimental to
\nthe main image of the force and hence, could not be  allowed  to  continue  in
\nservice.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  By order dated 13th March 2003 in O.A.No.4831 of 2002, the Central
\nAdministrative  Tribunal  allowed  the application, setting aside the order of
\ndismissal and directed the writ petitioners to reinstate the first  respondent
\nwith all  back-wages  and  service  benefits.  Accepting the case of the first
\nrespondent, the Tribunal went into  the  evidence  and  the  findings  of  the
\ndisciplinary  authority to arrive at a conclusion that there was absolutely no
\nbasis  for  the  allegation  that  there  was  illicit  intimacy  between  the
\ndelinquent  officer, the first respondent herein and Malathi, wife of Vijayan,
\nHead Constable, as well as with Rani, daughter of Vijayan.  The Tribunal  held
\nthat the mother and daughter had denied their relationship with the delinquent
\nofficer  and  there was nothing in the evidence of Vijayan to prove that there
\nexisted any relationship between the first respondent and  Rani,  daughter  of
\nVijayan.   Referring  to  the evidence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
\nthe  enquiry  officer,  the  Tribunal  held  that  as  P.W.5  ,   the   Deputy
\nSuperintendent of Police himself had relied upon the statement of witnesses at
\nthe  time  of preliminary enquiry which were all denied by the witnesses later
\non.  Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1969 SC 983,
\nthe Tribunal ultimately held that the order of the disciplinary authority  was
\ntotally  wrong;  thus  the  relief  as  prayed  for  was  granted to the first
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Inspector  General  of
\nPolice  (Law and Order) and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirapalli
\nRange, have preferred the  writ  petition.    Challenging  the  order  of  the
\nTribunal,  it is contended by the writ petitioners that the Tribunal committed
\na grave error in ignoring the fact that the  first  respondent  had  committed
\nserious  misconduct and misdemeanor, unbecoming of a member of the disciplined
\nforce; that the Tribunal had erred in ignoring the fact that the incident  had
\ntaken  place  in  the  police  quarters campus; that the evidence given by the
\nwitnesses at the time of enquiry had to be given their due  weightage  proving
\nthe guilt of the respondent herein; that instead of taking care of the welfare
\nand  dignity  of  the  subordinates  and  their  family  and the people in his
\njurisdiction, the respondent had acted in an irresponsible and shocking manner
\nto bring disrepute and harm to the  good  image  of  uniformed  forces.    The
\npetitioner further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the
\nfact  that the issue related to the chastity of the ladies which had compelled
\nthem to turn hostile at the time of enquiry; hence, the statement given at the
\ntime of preliminary enquiry and report ought to have been accepted as  a  good
\npointer to the conduct of the respondent warranting dismissal from service.\n<\/p>\n
        7.    The   learned  Special  Government  Pleader  appearing  for  the
\npetitioners further submitted that the interference  by  the  Tribunal  as  an
\nappellate  authority  was  totally contrary to the decisions of this Court and
\nthe Supreme Court and that it ought not to have substituted its views.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Learned counsel for the first respondent supporting the  order  of
\nthe  Tribunal,  submitted that the order of dismissal was based on no evidence
\nand perversity and the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the  order  and
\nhence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   A  perusal of the enquiry report showed that the first respondent
\nhad acted in a manner which was derogatory of the  dignity  of  a  disciplined
\nforce;  that  forgetting his status, had misbehaved with the wife and daughter
\nof a subordinate official; that the conduct  of  the  delinquent  officer  had
\ntaken  one  of  the  affected  parties even to the extent of attempting on her
\nlife.  Considering the fact that the conduct of  the  delinquent  officer  was
\ntotally  on  an  immoral plane bringing disrepute to the dignity of the police
\nforce, the enquiry officer found as a matter of fact that the first respondent
\nhad committed a serious act, touching on the morale and character.  It is seen
\nfrom the enquiry report that as P.W.1, Malathi, had stated that the delinquent
\nhad enticed her and had sexual intercourse with her; as P.W.2, Maragatha Rani,
\ndaughter of Vijayan, had also spoken  about  the  misbehaviour  of  the  first
\nrespondent.   The  statement  given  by Malathi is further strengthened by the
\nevidence of P.W.3, Vijayan and it is not out of place to mention that  in  the
\nenquiry,  the delinquent officer admitted that he had seduced Malathi, wife of
\nVijayan; that however, he did not have any relationship with  Maragatha  Rani.
\nThe  delinquent  officer  had admitted that he had sexual intercourse with her
\nabout five or six times, but when his relationship with Malathi  came  to  the
\nknowledge  of  the  higher officials, the said Vijayan was asked to vacate the
\nresidence from the quarters and accordingly, the said Vijayan had shifted  his
\nresidence from  31.5.2001 night.  The learned counsel for the first respondent
\nproduced before us the copies of  the  statements  recorded  at  the  time  of
\npreliminary enquiry  before  the  enquiry  officer.    It  is  seen  that  the
\nstatements from the delinquent officer and from the witnesses were recorded on
\ndifferent dates,  and  a  reading  of  the  statements  would  show  that  the
\ndelinquent  officer,  the  first respondent herein, did misbehave with Malathi
\nand Rani.  It is not without surprise that at the time of final enquiry before
\nthe disciplinary authority, Malathi and Maragatha Rani turned  hostile.    The
\nconduct  of the hostile witnesses in staying away had to be viewed, keeping in
\nmind the greater repercussions that they are likely to have  in  familial  and
\nsocial life.    The  fact remained that the first respondent had committed the
\noffence charged and the fact that the witnesses turned hostile  does  not,  in
\nany  way,  do  away  with  the  fact that the first respondent had, on his own
\nadmission, committed the offence.  Even assuming  that  the  affected  parties
\nhave  turned  hostile,  as  we had earlier stated, the statement admitting the
\nguilt itself is good enough to confirm the punishment  awarded  on  the  first
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   Learned  counsel for the first respondent placed reliance on the
\ndecision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.29862 and  325  81  of
\n2002 dated 22.2.2005 to impress on the fact that when the witnesses had turned
\nhostile  and  did  not  support  the earlier stand before the enquiry officer,
\nthere was absolutely no material to prove  the  charge  levelled  against  the
\ndelinquent  officer  and  hence,  the  Tribunal was fully justified in setting
\naside the order.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   A  perusal  of  the decision of the Division Bench of this Court
\nshows that on the analysis of the entire facts, this Court held that there was
\nno acceptable evidence to take a view different  from  that  of  the  Tribunal
\nquashing the  order  of  dismissal.    In the context of the said finding, the
\ndecision of this Court in W.P.Nos.29862 and 32581 of 2002 dated  22.2.2005  is
\ndistinguishable.   The  case  on  hand  reveals  the  fact that the delinquent
\nofficer himself had admitted about his illicit relationship with the  wife  of
\nthe subordinate   officer.    Leaving  aside  the  statement  of  the  hostile
\nwitnesses, on the very admission by this delinquent officer, one can say  that
\nthe order of punishment is a justified one factually and legally too.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   Learned counsel for the first respondent further placed reliance
\non an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.  Nos.10957
\nof 2004 and batch  of  cases  dated  8.4.2005,  wherein,  the  Division  Bench
\ndismissed  the writ petition filed by the State against the order of the Tamil
\nNadu Administrative Tribunal quashing the order of dismissal.  On a perusal of
\nthe said decision, it is seen that on an appreciation  of  the  evidence  from
\nfacts  found  by  the authorities below as well as by the Tribunal, this Court
\nupheld the order of the Tribunal holding that the findings were  perverse  and
\nnot supported  by  any  evidence  on  record.    This  Court, referring to the
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in KULDEEP SINGH Vs.  THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
\nAND OTHERS (1998 (9) Supreme 452), held that the evidences were uncorroborated
\nand unreliable which necessitated the Tribunal to interfere with the  findings
\nof the  disciplinary  authority.   This Court rejected the contention that the
\norder of the disciplinary authority could not  be  interfered  with  and  that
\nArticle  226  of  the Constitution is not a Court of appeal; that if there was
\nsome acceptable evidence on record  which  could  be  relied  upon,  then  the
\nconclusions would  not  be  disturbed  as  perverse.  On the facts, this Court
\nfound that the order of the Tribunal was sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  The decision of the Supreme Court relied on, viz., (2001)  1  SCC
\n65 (UNION  OF  INDIA  Vs.  K.A.KITTU AND OTHERS) and AIR 1969 SC 983 ( CENTRAL
\nBANK OF INDIA Vs.  P.C.JAIN) were rendered on  the  fact  situation  prevalent
\ntherein and hence could not be applied to support the respondents’ plea.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   As  regards the judgment reported in (2001) 1 SCC 65 in the case
\nof UNION OF INDIA Vs.  K.A.KITTU AND OTHERS,  it  may  be  seen  that  on  the
\nfactual  front,  the  Tribunal’s  decision  that  the  finding  of the Enquiry
\nOfficer\/ disciplinary authority was based on no evidence  was  upheld  by  the
\nSupreme Court.    In  the  context  of  the  findings rendered by the Tribunal
\ntherein, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal  preferred  by  the  Union  of
\nIndia.   As  regards  the decision reported in AIR 196 9 SC 983 in the case of
\nCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs.  P.C.JAIN, the Supreme Court held that an Industrial
\nTribunal can disregard the findings of an Enquiry Officer only if the findings
\nwere perverse.  It held that “the test of  perversity  that  is  indicated  in
\nthese cases is that the findings may not be supported by any legal evidence at
\nall.”  Referring  to  the decision reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723 in the case of
\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs.  S.SREE RAMA RAO, the Supreme Court  noted  ”  But
\nthe  departmental  authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held,
\nthe sole Judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence  on  which  their
\nfindings  can  be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a
\nmatter which can be permitted to be canvassed  before  the  High  Court  in  a
\nproceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.”\n<\/p>\n
        16.   In the context of the legal principles and the factual findings,
\nthe Supreme Court affirmed the view of the Tribunal that the findings recorded
\nby the enquiry officer were perverse and not supported by any legal  evidence.
\nIn  the  background  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme Court speaking on the
\njurisdiction of the Tribunal and this Court under Article 226, if we  look  at
\nthe  conclusions  arrived  at,  we  may  say that there is nothing perverse as
\nregards the finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority.    The  admitted
\nfacts  by  the  delinquent officer would clearly show of his relationship with
\nthe wife of one Head Constable and his daughter.  The enquiry conducted giving
\ndue credence to the statements of the witnesses  Malathi,  wife  of  the  Head
\nConstable,  and  his  daughter  speaking  about  the conduct of the delinquent
\nofficer which, as we had already noted, are facts admitted by  the  delinquent
\nofficer  in his statement; that Vijayan, husband of Malathi, had stated at the
\ntime of enquiry that the delinquent officer seduced  his  wife  for  which  he
\nadmonished  his wife; that on this account, he had to shift his residence from
\nThiruvankurichi to Manachanalur.  In the context of the behaviour  exposed  of
\nMalathi  and  the delinquent officer, although the said Malathi did not appear
\nin the departmental disciplinary proceedings, due weightage was given  to  the
\nstatement given by the witnesses at the time of preliminary enquiry.  Thus, on
\nthe  preponderance  of  probabilities,  as  a  guiding  factor, the delinquent
\nofficer was visited with a penalty order of dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  It may be noted that sufficiency or otherwise  of  the  evidences
\nleading to the punishment of the official is concerned is not a matter for the
\nTribunal  to go into by way of a re-appreciation of the evidence and virtually
\nto go back to a stage prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry.   A
\nperusal  of the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in JT 1994 (7) SC 744,
\n(TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, MADRAS-5 Vs.  A.RADHAKRISHNA MOORTHY), as relied upon
\nby the learned Special Government  Pleader  for  the  State,  shows  that  the
\njurisdiction  of  the  Tribunal  is  akin to the power of the High Court under
\nArticle 226.  The power of  judicial  review  is  limited  to  the  extent  of
\nprocedural correction  of  the decision making process.  In the absence of any
\nmaterial contra to substantiate the stand of the delinquent official  or  show
\nthe perversity of the findings of the disciplinary authority, the order of the
\nTribunal  interfering  with  the  findings  of  the ultimate fact finding body
\ncannot be sustained by this Court.  It may be noted that the  conduct  of  the
\ndelinquent officer  is  not befitting a police officer.  The disciplined force
\nowe a duty to the public in general.  Apart from  bringing  disrepute  to  the
\nservices,  failure  to  maintain  discipline  even  in his relationship with a
\nfellow official, would undermine the faith of the general public at  large  in
\nthe  law  enforcing  authorities  in the matter of getting protection, thereby
\nshake the very confidence of the public in the uniformed forces.   The  narrow
\ntechnicalities  in  the  matter  of not examining the hostile witnesses cannot
\nsway the preponderance of probabilities arising from the very admission of the
\ndelinquent official.  The order of the Tribunal ignoring the statement of  the
\ndelinquent officer, hence, is liable to be quashed.  It is factually incorrect
\non  the part of the Tribunal to state that on preliminary enquiry, it admitted
\nthat none of the witnesses had spoken about the illicit  relationship  between
\nthe witnesses  and  the  applicant.    In the context of the statements of the
\ndelinquent official and the other witnesses speaking about  the  conduct,  the
\norder of  punishment given to the first respondent is fully justified.  In the
\ncircumstances, the Tribunal’s order dated 13.3.2003 in O.A.No.4836 of 2 002 is
\nhereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed.    Connected  W.    P.M.P.No.
\n46727 of 2003 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
ksv<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
The Registrar
\nTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
\nChennai-104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M.Savarlguru vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 February, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03\/02\/2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA and THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN W.P.No.38503 of 2003 1. The Inspector General of Police Law & Order, Chennai-4. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Tiruchirapalli […]<\/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-18196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.Savarlguru vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 February, 2006 - 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-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Savarlguru vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-19T00:58:26+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=\"15 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-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Savarlguru vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-19T00:58:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2954,\"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-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006\",\"name\":\"M.Savarlguru vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-19T00:58:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Savarlguru vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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.Savarlguru vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 February, 2006 - 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-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Savarlguru vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-19T00:58:26+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Savarlguru vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-19T00:58:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006"},"wordCount":2954,"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-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006","name":"M.Savarlguru vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-19T00:58:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-savarlguru-vs-the-commissioner-of-police-on-3-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Savarlguru vs The Commissioner Of Police on 3 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/18196","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=18196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18196\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}