{"id":236507,"date":"2006-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006"},"modified":"2014-05-24T12:28:31","modified_gmt":"2014-05-24T06:58:31","slug":"the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 02\/03\/2006\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR\n\nWrit Appeal No. 479 of 2005\nand Writ Petition No. 3009 of 2005, and\nW.A.M.P.No.866\/2005,W.P.M.P.Nos.3381, 2756 to 2758 of 2006.\n\n\nW.A.No. 479 of 2005\n\n1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,\n   represented by its Secretary,\n   Department of Home, Fort St. George,\n   Chennai-9.\n\n2. The Director General of Police,\n   D.G.P. Office, Mylapore,\n   Chennai-4.\n\n3. The Additional Director General of Police,\n   Special Task Force, Sathiyamangalam,\n   Erode District.\n\n4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n   Dharmapuri District.\n\n5. The Station House Officer,\n   Kolathur Police Station,\n   Dharmapuri District. .. Appellants\/Respondents.<\/pre>\n
-Vs-\n<\/p>\n
1. Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Joint Director,
\n   Central Bureau of Investigation,
\n   Haddows Road, Chennai-6. .. 6th Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
                                        .. Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.No. 3009 of 2005<\/p>\n
Mrs. Muthulakshmi,
\nW\/o. Munusamy Veerappan,
\nT.M.B. Nagar, Puthuchampalli,
\nMettur Dam-2, Salem District.\n<\/p>\n
                                      .. Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                           Vs.\n<\/p>\n
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
\n   represented by its Secretary,
\n   Department of Home,
\n   Fort St. George, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Director General of Police,
\n   D.G.P.Office, Mylapore,
\n   Chennai-4.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Additional Director General of Police,
\n   Special Task Force, Sathiyamangalam,
\n   Erode District.\n<\/p>\n
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
\n   Dharmapuri District.\n<\/p>\n
5. The Station House Officer,
\n   Kolathur Police Station,
\n   Dharmapuri District.\n<\/p>\n
6. The Joint Director,
\n   Central Bureau of Investigation,
\n   Haddows Road, Chennai-6.\n<\/p>\n
                                         .. Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
        Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order in so  far
\nas  it  relates  to  Clause (ii) of para 12 of order date 4 -2-2005 and partly
\nallowing in portion of the order dated 7-2-2005 in so far as  para  6  of  the
\nmodification order,  made  in  Writ Petition No.  3009\/2005 by Single Judge of
\nthis Court; and<\/p>\n
        Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to  issue
\na  Writ of Mandamus, directing the 6th respondent herein to depute a competent
\nofficer to take up the investigation of Crime No.  1221\/2004 dated  19-10-2004
\nfrom the file of 5th respondent and investigate the same under the supervision
\nof  the 6th respondent and procedure as per law, also by invoking the relevant
\nsection of Indian Penal Code against  the  erring  3rd  respondent  personnel,
\naward costs.\n<\/p>\n
!Mr.  A.L.  Somayaji, Additional Advocate General,
\nassisted by Mr.  D.  Krishnakumar, Special Govt.,
\nPleader:- For Appellants in W.A.No.479\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
^Mr.  R.  Sankarasubbu:- For 1st Respondent in W.A.479
\nof 2005, and for Petitioner in W.P.No.3009\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  A.L.  Somayaji, Additional Advocate General,
\nassisted by Mr.  D.  Krishnakumar, Special Government
\nPleader and Mr.  C.  Manishankar, Special Public
\nProsecutor for Respondents in W.P.No.  3009\/2005,
\nand for R-2 in Writ Appeal No.479\/2005.\n<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGEMENT
\n(Judgement of the Court was made by P.  Sathasivam, J.,)<\/p>\n
        Home  Department  of  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  and their officers,
\naggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4-2-20 05 in  so  far
\nas it relates to Clause (ii) of para 12, and partly allowing in portion of the
\norder  dated  7-2-2005  in so far as para 6 of the Modification Order, made in
\nWrit Petition No.  3009\/2005, have filed Writ Appeal No.  479 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Muthulakshmi, wife of Munusamy Veerappan,  Puthuchampally,  Mettur
\nDam-2, Salem  District,  has  filed  Writ Petition No.  3009\/2 005 praying for
\nissuance of a Writ  of  Mandamus,  directing  6th  respondent-Joint  Director,
\nCentral Bureau of Investigation, Haddows Road, Chennai-6 to depute a competent
\nofficer to  take  up  the  investigation  of  Crime  No.    1221 of 2004 dated
\n19-10-2004 from the file of 5th  respondent-Station  House  Officer,  Kolathur
\nPolice  Station,  Dharmapuri  District  and  investigate  the  same  under the<\/p>\n
supervision of 6th respondent  i.e.,  C.B.I  as  per  law  against  the  third
\nrespondent-Additional   Director   General  of  Police,  Special  Task  Force,
\nSathiyamangalam, Erode District.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Inasmuch as the Writ Appeal filed by the Government is against  an
\ninterim  direction  pending  disposal of the main writ petition and in view of
\nthe fact that both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are taken up together
\nfor disposed, let us  consider  the  case  of  the  writ  petitioner,  namely,
\nMuthulakshmi.   According  to her, the Special Task Force allegedly killed her
\nhusband deceased Munusamy Veerappan (hereinafter referred to  as  “Veerappan”)
\nalong  with  his  three  accomplices  in  an  encounter  at Padi in Dharmapuri
\nDistrict.  The Tamil Nadu Police had tortured her husband in  the  year  1985.
\nTherefore, he escaped from their custody into the forest.  Though the citizens
\nof  Karnataka  and  Tamil  Nadu  and  Kerala  heaved  a  sigh of relief at the
\nelimination of her husband, Veerappan, the sequence of  events  that  lead  to
\nshoot  out  and the death of her husband, has caused suspicion in the minds of
\nwell informed persons and enlightened citizens.  The Chief of the Special Task
\nForce of Karnataka Mr.  Jyothi Prakash Mirji has stated that whether Veerappan
\ncommitted suicide would be probed, and thus there is an element  of  suspicion
\nin  the  death  of  Veerappan  and his accomplices at the hand of Special Task
\nForce of Tamil Nadu.  Though four persons, including her husband  were  killed
\nin  an  alleged  encounter  on  18-10-2004,  a  case  was  filed  in Crime No.
\n1221\/2004 under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure for  offences  under
\nSections  307, 323 I.P.C., read with Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act and
\n4 (b) of Explosive Substance Act against her husband  and  three  others,  the
\nfifth respondent  has  not  deliberately  registered F.I.R.  under Section 302
\nI.P.C.  against the third respondent herein, subsequently who are all involved
\nin the murder of her husband and 3 others.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  It is further stated that though the suspicion over the  death  of
\nher  husband  is  not  yet  cleared,  there  are so many contradictions in the
\nstatements of Mr.  Vijayakumar, I.P.S., Chief of  Special  Task  Force,  Tamil
\nNadu,  who  claimed  that  her  husband  was killed in an encounter and in the
\nstatement of Mr.  Jothi Prakash Mirji, Chief of Special Task Force, Karnataka,
\nwho claimed that Veerappan might have committed suicide, the State Governments
\nof Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have played up the incident and attempted to  take
\ncredit  for  the gunning down of the brigand and hastily announced rewards and
\nlargesse for the Special Task Force personnel.  The Tamil Nadu Government  has
\ngiven lagesse  to  the  tune of Rs.22.5 Crores which include Rs.  3 Lakhs each
\ncash award, a housing plot and accelerated promotion for all the  752  Special
\nTask Force (S.T.F in short) personnel.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   It  is  her  further  claim that the Government of Tamil Nadu are
\nshowing undue haste to honour the S.T.F personnel in Tamil Nadu only to create
\na record and register it in history for the posterity  to  glorify  the  Tamil
\nNadu Police.  There is an apprehension in the minds of general public that her
\nhusband  might  have committed suicide when cornered by the S.T.F., personnel.
\nThe S.T.F., personnel have miserably failed to nab her husband alive,  instead
\nthey ventured  to  kill  him  or  allowed him to commit suicide.  The Chief of
\nS.T.F., has killed several persons in the name of  encounters.    Hundreds  of
\nvictims  who  lost  their  lives and materials of excesses committed by the S.
\nT.F..  personnel, including rape and murder were  unfortunately  forgotten  by
\nthe Government  of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.  The respondents have shown total
\nindifference to the rights of the victims of crime S.T.    F.,  personnel  and
\nsuch  an  indifference  will  erode  faith  of  the society in general and the
\nvictims of crime in particular in the country’s democracy.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  According to her, post-mortem of her husband’s body  was  done  in
\nGovernment General Hospital, Dharmapuri on 19-10-2004.  Though the post-mortem
\ndoctors  have  mentioned  so many injuries on the dead body, they deliberately
\nomitted some major and controversial injuries on the dead body of her  husband
\nnamely, injury  on  his  right  hand  fingers.  The post-mortem report did not
\ndisclose about the injuries on his legs below the hip.   The  post-mortem  has<\/p>\n
not been  done properly.  The post-mortem report is vague and it has been done
\nby incompetent medical officers.  Her husband’s murder  has  created  so  many
\nsuspicions.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   It  is  further  stated  that  the  fact  finding team, which was
\ncomprised eight Human Rights Organisations, has gone to the occurrence  place,
\nenquired and collected materials from the general public.  The team has issued
\na  report  and also given press release on 18-01-2005 stating that her husband
\nand three others were given anaesthetic through buttermilk by  her  relatives,
\nwhich  showed  that the third respondent has captured her husband and 3 others
\nafter they become unconscious because of the given anaesthetic.  The Chief  of
\nS.T.F.  has also  agreed to conduct re-post-mortem.  One Mr.  Haribabu, who is
\nan  Advocate  and  also  Convenor  of  the  Fact  Finding  Team,  has  made  a
\nrepresentation  dated 15-11-2004 to the fourth respondent for re-postmortem of
\nthe dead body of her husband.  No action has been taken so far.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  On behalf of Government  of  Tamil  Nadu,  first  respondent,  the
\nAdditional  Secretary  to the Government, Home Department, has filed a counter
\naffidavit wherein it is stated that petitioner’s  husband  Veerappan,  Son  of
\nKoose  Munusamy of Gopinatham village in Karnataka State of Tamil origin was a
\nhard core criminal.  During the period 1978-2001,  he  had  killed  2000  male
\nelephants  and  stolen  40,000  kgs of tusks (worth Rs.12 crores), denuded the
\nforests of sandalwood in a large scale and murdered 124 persons  belonging  to
\nPolice, Forests,  Civilians of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.  Further, he abducted
\n45 persons.  When he abducted Dr.  Rajkumar, Karnataka Cine  fame  actor,  the
\nlives  and  properties  of  the entire Tamil Community in Karnataka were under
\nconstant threat besides his activities brought shame to the State as  well  as
\nto the country and disgrace to the humanity.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   In  order  to  prevent  Veerappan  and  his  gang from committing
\natrocities and to nab them, the operation  Vanamalai  was  launched  in  1990,
\njointly by  the  Governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.  Government of Tamil
\nNadu formed a Special Task Force (STF)  on  01-05-19  93  with  200  selective
\npolicemen  from  different  wings  of  the  police  department  under the then
\nAdditional Director General of Police.   Subsequently,  regular  Special  Task
\nForce was  formed  with strength of 239 police personnel.  In the year 1999, a
\npost of Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force was  created.    After
\nrelease of  the abducted Kannada Cine actor Dr.  Rajkumar on 15-11-2000, since
\nthe forest brigand Veerappan was eluding the Special Task Force personnel, the
\nGovernment sanctioned an additional post of Deputy Inspector General of Police
\nand two Superintendents of Police for Special Task Force on  22-11-2  000  for
\nintensive combing operations and to nab the forest brigand alive.  In addition
\nto  this,  personnel  of  Tamil  Nadu  Special Police Battalion, Local Police,
\nCommando Police personnel and forest personnel  had  also  been  pressed  into
\nservice  and  thereby  the total number of personnel involved in the operation
\nwas increased to 826 in December, 2 000.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  After revamping and  activating  the  S.T.F  during  June,  2001,
\ndevelopments  activities  have  been  initiated to make the Special Task Force
\npeople-friendly and to isolate the Forest Brigand  Veerappan  from  the  local
\npeople.   Due  to manipulation of Veerappan a land mine exploded in the forest
\narea, wherein Veerappan and his gang were hiding resulting in the death  of  5
\nPolice Constables  and  two  forest  watchers.    The Government of Tamil Nadu
\nsanctioned a financial incentive of  Rs.50,000\/-  to  those  who  give  useful
\ninformation leading  to  the  arrest of Veerappan and his gang.  In G.O.Ms.No.
\n615, Home dated 02-07-2001 orders were issued enhancing the reward amount from
\nRs.20 lakhs to Rs.  25 lakhs to those who capture\/giving clues leading to  the
\ncapture of  the  forest  brigand  Veerappan  and  his  brother  Arjunan.   The
\nGovernment also sanctioned a reward of Rs.15 lakhs to  those  who  give  vital
\nclue to nab Sethukuli Govindan and the Government sanctioned the reward amount
\nof Rs.10 lakhs to those who give vital clue to nab other members (for each) of
\nthe dreaded  Veerappan  gang.    While  the  police party attempted to capture
\nVeerappan and his associates, they opened fire towards the police party and in
\nthe encounter they were killed.  Therefore, the brave personnel of the Special
\nTask Force deserve honour and reward and the Government  have  considered  the
\nservices  of  the  personnel  of  Special  Task  Force  from  the  rank of the
\nAdditional  Director  General  of  Police,  Special  Task  Force   to   police
\nconstables,  cooks  and  orderlies, who have risked their lives and sacrificed
\ntheir safety and the comfort of their homes, spending years  away  from  their
\nfamilies,  leading dangerous lives in the thick Sathyamangalam forest, braving
\nhardship and sickness, courting danger and death every day.    Hence,  it  was
\ndecided to  award  each  man  and Officer of the Special Task Force.  Further,
\nrecognizing the bravery is the duty of the Government, and in  doing  so,  the
\nGovernment  sanctioned  the  cash  awards  and  other  benefits and thereby to
\nmotivate the police force.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  The report of Justice A.J.  Sadashiva panel  constituted  by  the
\nNational Human Rights Commission to enquire into alleged excesses committed by
\nthe  Joint  Special  Task  Force  was  submitted  to the National Human Rights
\nCommission on 02-12-2003.  The National Human  Rights  Commission  sought  for
\nremarks of the State Governments.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   Regarding  the  post-mortem and the doctors who conducted, it is
\nstated that a team of  competent  doctors  conducted  a  thorough  post-mortem
\nexamination  on the dead bodies of the deceased Veerappan and three others and
\nthe entire post-mortem was video graphed.  Further, the photos of the deceased
\npersons were taken from different angles showing all the injuries and the said
\nvideo\/tape and the photos with negatives  were  handed  over  to  the  Revenue
\nDivisional  Officer  by the Investigation officer in Dharmapuri Police Station
\nCrime No.  1221 \/2004.  All the three doctors who  conducted  post-mortem  are
\nwell  experienced  and competent in conducting post-mortem examination of dead
\nbodies involved  in  medico-legal  cases  and  in  particular  experienced  in
\nconducting  post-mortem  of  dead  bodies  whose  death  were  caused  by Fire
\nArms\/Explosives.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  In the proceedings  No.ROC.58187\/04\/C1  dated  19-10-20  04,  the
\nCollector  has  ordered  an  enquiry  under Section 150 (3) of Police Standing
\nOrder into the death of Veerappan and his close associates.  Accordingly,  the
\nSub-Divisional  Magistrate  and  Revenue  Divisional  Officer, Dharmapuri have
\nissued notices to the  general  public  intimating  the  date  of  magisterial
\nenquiry, as  01-11-2004  and 02-11-2004.  As per the directions of this Court,
\nthe Revenue Divisional Officer completed the enquiry and submitted the  report
\nto the  Government  through  District  Collector  on  31-03-2005.   The report
\ndiscloses, that during the enquiry 196 witnesses have been examined.   Experts
\nreports from Biology, Serology, Ballistic, Viscera, Physical, explosive, etc.,
\nhave been  obtained and considered by Revenue Divisional Officer.  Considering
\nall the statements obtained  from  the  witnesses  and  reports,  the  Revenue
\nDivisional  Officer  has  concluded that it is an intelligence operation which
\nwas evolved and in such an operation, the Special  Task  Force  personnel  was
\nleft  with  no  other  option except to open fire in self defence and in their
\nattempt to apprehend or arrest the said dreaded criminals Veerappan and  three
\nothers.   In  the  encounter  Veerappan, Chandregowda, Sethumani and Sethukuli
\nGovindan were killed.  The Revenue Divisional Officer has concluded  that  the
\naction  of  the  Special  Task Force personnel is justified and the Government
\nhave issued orders accepting the findings of the Revenue  Divisional  Officer.
\nThe  petitioner  has  no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  The prayer for  investigation
\nby C.B.I is not maintainable.  Further, concurrence of the State Government is
\nnecessary for entrusting a case for investigation by the C.B.I.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  The  third  respondent namely, K.  Vijaykumar, I.P.S., Additional
\nDirector General of Police, Special Task Force,  Sathyamangalam  has  filed  a
\ncounter affidavit highlighting the entire steps taken by them for apprehending
\nVeerappan  and  his  gang  and  the ultimate operation that had taken place on
\n18-10-2004.  Regarding  shoot  out,  it  is  stated  that  Veerappan  and  his
\nassociate criminals who were threatening two State Governments for the past 20
\nyears,  while  the  police  party attempted to capture them, Veerappan and his
\nassociates fired towards the police party and in the encounter, they met their
\nend and so the brave personnel of the S.T.F  deserve  honour  and  reward  and
\nthere  is  nothing wrong in recognizing their courage by awarding the rewards.
\nWhile denying the encounter as a fake encounter,  different  police  officials
\nhad  to open fire due to unavoidable circumstances, which warranted firing for
\nself defence.  Various other encounters referred to in the  affidavit,  it  is
\nstated  that  the  said encounters were conducted by different police officers
\nand as a conscientious officer, he has discharged his duty with  devotion  and
\nin good  faith.    Further,  as  per  the orders of the Government, the entire
\nincident was enquired by  the  Revenue  Divisional  Officer.    In  fact,  the
\npetitioner also participated in the said enquiry.  There cannot be a second or
\nsuccessive First Information Report in regard to the same incident\/occurrence.
\nAdmittedly, in this case already a case in Dharmapuri Police Station Crime No.
\n1221\/2004  was  registered  and  because  of  the  death,  the matter is being
\nenquired by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate  and  there  cannot  be  a
\nparallel   investigation   and   the   Station   House  Officer  can  continue
\ninvestigation only after enquiry by the Revenue Divisional  Officer  is  over.
\nAfter  enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the investigation officer in
\nCrime No.  1221\/2004 can investigate the case and submit a final report to the
\ncourt concerned.  The prayer  for  investigation  by  the  Central  Bureau  of
\nInvestigation  is  not  maintainable  and  the  writ  petition is liable to be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  Fifth respondent-Inspector  of  Police,  Station  House  Officer,
\nKolathur  Police  Station,  Mettur  Taluk,  Salem District has filed a counter
\naffidavit wherein he denied  the  allegation  that  he  has  not  deliberately
\nregistered F.I.R.   under Section 302 I.P.C., against the third respondent and
\nthat there is no necessity to register such an F.I.R.  as already a  case  has
\nbeen  registered  regarding  the  same  occurrence  in  Dharmapuri Town Police
\nStation Crime no.  1221\/2004.  He is not in any way connected  with  the  case
\nfile of Dharmapuri  Town Police Station Crime No.  1221\/2004.  However, he has
\ntaken the petition on the file of Kolathur Police Station C.S.R.No.   383\/2004
\non  13-11-20  04  and  as  per  the rules and procedure, the said petition was
\ntransferred to  the  investigation  officer  Thiru  P.    Krishnaraj,   Deputy
\nSuperintendent of  Police,  Dharmapuri  District for further action.  The said
\ninvestigation  officer  has  forwarded  the  said  petition  to  the   Revenue
\nDivisional Officer, Dharmapuri to take it on file as per 160 (3) Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  In   the  light  of  the  above  pleadings,  we  heard  Mr.    R.\n<\/p>\n
Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr.  A.L.  Somayaji,
\nlearned Additional Advocate General for the State.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  After  taking  us  through  the  relevant  materials,  Mr.     R.
\nSankarasubbu,  learned  counsel  appearing for the writ petitioner, has raised
\nthe following contentions:\n<\/p>\n
i) The complaint of the petitioner dated 08-11-2004 has not been registered so
\nfar and no action taken till this date;\n<\/p>\n
ii) The Government have no right to kill any one much less Veerappan even  for
\nself  defence  and  direction  of  the Government in this regard in G.O.Ms.No.
\n1652 Home dated 9-11-1993 cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
iii) Three days prior to the alleged incident on 18-10-2004, Veerappan and his
\nassociates were captured and tortured by the S.T.  F.  personnel;\n<\/p>\n
iv) The petitioner has a reliable information that her husband  Veerappan  was
\nadministered anaesthetic material, due to which he was killed;\n<\/p>\n
v)  The  investigation  by  the  Human  Rights  activities lead to a different
\nconclusion regarding cause of her husband’s death; hence  enquiry  by  Central
\nBureau of Investigation is a must;\n<\/p>\n
vi)  The  various  instructions  of  the Human Rights Commission have not been
\nfollowed, but violated.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  Mr.  A.L.  Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General, met all
\nthe contentions.  According to him,  the  details  furnished  in  the  counter
\naffidavit  of  the  first  and  third  respondents  are  answers  to  all  the
\ncontentions.  He further pointed out that the  petitioner  is  not  consistent
\nwith her  version regarding cause of death of her husband.  Even the complaint
\nis an after thought.  He further contended that  the  so-called  Human  Rights
\nOrganisations have  no  sanctity  and their alleged reports have no value.  In
\nview of the enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer and his report that  has
\nbeen  accepted  by  the  Government, no further enquiry by agency like Central
\nBureau of Investigation is warranted.  According to him, the petitioner having
\nappeared in the enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer and  considering
\nthe  fact  that  the  Government  have  accepted  the  report  of  the Revenue
\nDivisional Officer, there was no case for further enquiry by other agency like
\nCentral Bureau of Investigation.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  We have perused the materials placed by the  petitioner,  various
\ndetails  furnished  in  the  counter  affidavit  of  the respondents and rival
\ncontentions of the counsel for petitioner as well as respondents.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  It is the case of the State that Veerappan, deceased in this case
\nwas a notorious criminal and during the period 1978-2001 , he had murdered 124
\npersons and abducted 45 persons belonging to Police, Forest  Deppartments  and
\ncivilians of States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.  He had also killed 2000 male
\nelephants and  stolen  40,000 kgs.  Of tusks (worth Rs.12 crores), denuded the
\nforests of Sandal Wood in a large scale.  As his activities brought  shame  to
\nthe  State  and gave constant threat to the lives and properties of the people
\nof both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, and in order to prevent  Veerappan  and  his
\ngang  from  killing  human beings and animals and committing atrocities and to
\nnab them, the Tamil Nadu Government formed a team called ” Special Task Force”
\nin the year 1993, comprising police and  forest  personnel.    The  series  of
\nattempts to  nab  them  ended  in  vain.  It is stated that while police party
\nattempted to capture Veerappan and his associates, they  opened  fire  towards
\nthe  police party and in the encounter on 18-10-2004, he and his gang of three
\npersons were killed by the S.T.F.   personnel,  headed  by  Mr.    Vijaykumar,
\nI.P.S., Chief of S.T.F.  Muthulakshmi, wife of the deceased Veerappan has come
\nforward  with  this  Writ  Petition  raising suspicion over the killing of her
\nhusband, the way in which the post-mortem was conducted on the  dead  body  of
\nher  deceased  husband,  the  haste  action of the Government in granting huge
\nincentives,  rewards  to  the  personnel  involving  in  the   operation   and
\nnon-registering her  complaint  by  the  police.  She has apprehended that her
\nhusband was tortured by  the  S.T.F.    personnel  and  might  have  committed
\nsuicide, and  that  the S.T.F.  personnel instead of nabbing him alive, killed
\nhim or allowed to commit suicide.  She further stated that during post-mortem,
\nseveral injuries found on her husband’s dead body have not been traced out and
\nbrought to light by the Postmortem doctors.  The  request  of  her  and  other
\nHuman  Rights  activists  for  re-post-mortem of the body of Veerappan has not
\nbeen considered.   According  to  her,  there  are  human  rights  violations.
\nTherefore,  she  prays  for entrusting the investigation of this case with the
\nCentral Bureau of Investigation.  We are very well conscious of the fact  that
\nthough Veerappan and his associates are dreaded criminals, still their liberty
\nto life  cannot  be taken away without following proper procedure.  Keeping it
\nin our mind, we will see whether the reasons and  contentions  raised  by  the
\nsaid  Muthulakshmi  fulfil the requirements of the Law warranting for ordering
\ninvestigation of Crime No.  1221\/2004 pending on the  file  of  Station  House
\nOfficer, Kolathur Police Station to the Central Bureau of Investigation in the
\nfollowing order.\n<\/p>\n
        21.   Before  considering the contentions in seriatim, it is useful to
\nrefer the relief sought for in the main writ petition.  Though we have already
\nstated in the earlier part of this judgment, for the sake of  repetition,  the
\nonly  relief  prayed  in  the  writ  petition  by the writ petitioner, wife of
\nVeerappan, is to entrust the investigation in Crime No.  1221\/2004 of  Station
\nHouse  Officer,  Kolathur  Police  Station,  which  is  pending,  on the sixth
\nrespondent-Central  Bureau  of  Investigation  (hereinafter  referred  to   as
\n“C.B.I.”).   Now  we have to see whether the petitioner has made out a case in
\norder to hand over the investigation to C.B.I.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  The first contention of Mr.  R.  Sakarasubbu  is  that  though  a
\ncomplaint  was  made by the petitioner as early as 08-11-2004 against Chief of
\nS.T.F and their officers, the same has  not  been  registered  and  no  action
\ntaken.   According to him, when a cognizable offence is made out, it is proper
\non the part of the Station House Officer to register it in accordance with the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure and deal with the same.  With reference to the said
\ncontention,  the  fifth  respondent-Station  House  Officer,  Kolathur  Police
\nStation  has filed a counter affidavit dated 30-03-2005 that on receipt of the
\npetition on the file of Kolathur Police Station in C.S.R.No.  383\/2004 on 13-1
\n1-2004 as per the  rules  and  procedure  the  same  was  transferred  to  the
\ninvestigation officer  Thiru  P.  Krishnaraj, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
\nDharmapuri District for further action.  It is further stated  that  the  said
\ninvestigation   officer  has  forwarded  the  said  petition  to  the  Revenue
\nDivisional Officer, Dharmapuri to take it on  file  as  per  Section  160  (3)
\nCr.P.C.   The  Revenue  Divisional  Officer, Dharmapuri is the enquiry officer
\nnominated by the District Collector, Dharmapuri to conduct enquiry under Order
\n150 (3) of Police Standing Order.  Apart from this, M.  Ramasamy, Inspector of
\nPolice, Dharmapuri Town Police Station, who has not been impleaded as a  party
\nin  the  said  writ  petition,  has filed an affidavit to explain the facts in
\nrespect of the complaint dated 8-11-2004.  In para 3 of his affidavit, he  has
\nspecifically  stated  that  no  such  petition  alleged  to  have been sent by
\nThirumathi Muthulakshmi was received either by post or in person by him; hence
\nthe question of  registering  F.I.R  for  taking  action  against  the  S.T.F.
\npersonnel by  him  did  not arise.  This specific averment of the Inspector of
\nPolice, Dharmapuri Town Police Station has not been denied by  the  petitioner
\nby filing  counter or reply.  In view of the information of 5th respondent and
\nof the fact that her complaint has been forwarded to  the  Revenue  Divisional
\nOfficer,  who  conducted  enquiry  relating  to the death of Veerappan and his
\nassociates before whom the petitioner also deposed, the grievance expressed by
\nthe petitioner as to the fate of her  alleged  complaint  dated  8-11-2004  is
\nliable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        23.     Since    the   rest   of   the   contentions\/allegations   are
\ninter-connected, they are being considered in the following paragraphs.    Mr.
\nR.   Sankarasubbu,  learned  counsel  for  petitioner,  drew  our attention to
\nG.O.Ms.No.  1652 Home (Police VIII) Department dated 9-11-1993, and  submitted
\nthat the  Government have no right to kill any one, including Veerappan.  Para
\n4 of the G.O., reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“Based  on  the  decision  mentioned  in  para  3  above  the  Government,  in
\nmodification of  orders  issued  in  G.O.Ms.No.    2042,  Home, dated 10-9 -90
\nsanction a award of Rs.20\/- lakhs (Rupees Twenty  lakhs  only)  to  those  who
\ncapture  or  give  clue  leading  to  the  capture  or kill the forest brigand
\nVeerappan and his brother Arjunan, as the share of this Government”.\n<\/p>\n
        Giving emphasis to the said direction, he  vehemently  contended  that
\nthe Government  was not justified in permitting any one to kill Veerappan.  On
\na careful scrutiny of the entire Government Order, we find that the  intention
\nof  the  Government,  as  reflected  in  para  4,  is  not  in  the manner, as
\ninterpreted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.  As rightly pointed out
\nby the learned Additional Advocate General, consequent on the  death  of  five
\nPolice  Constables  and  two  Forest  Watchers due to explosion of a land mine
\nreported to have been manipulated by Veerappan in the forest area,  an  urgent
\nHigh Level Meeting was convened on 11-04-1993, in which the Chief Ministers of
\nboth Tamil  Nadu and Karnataka participated.  As the incident of killing seven
\nofficials was so magnitude, it was decided to give a  reward  of  Rs.40  lakhs
\n(share  of  Tamil Nadu Rs.20 lakhs plus share of Karnataka Rs.20 lakhs = Total
\nRs.40 lakhs) to those who capture the notorious forest brigand  Veerappan  and
\nhis brother Arjunan.  When we read para 4 keeping in mind the intention of the
\nGovernment,  it  leads to a conclusion that the share of the State Government,
\nnamely, Rs.20 lakhs will be paid to those who capture or give clue leading  to
\nthe capture  or kill the forest brigand Veerappan and his brother Arjunan.  In
\nother words, the emphasis is that those who capture or give  clue  leading  to
\nthe capture or kill the forest brigand Veerappan and his brother Arjunan.  The
\nclue  referred  to  in  para  4 indicates not only for capturing, but also for
\nkilling them.  In the light of the details furnished by the  State  Government
\nwith  regard  to  his  activities  for  the  last 20 years, killing of several
\npersons, including personnel of Police and Forest Departments of  both  States
\nof Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, abducting of several persons, pouching of animals
\nsuch as Elephants, stealing of tusks, denuding the forests of sandalwood etc.,
\nthe reward announced by the Government cannot be found fault with.  The reward
\nwas  granted  by  the Government within their power and jurisdiction meant for
\nbravery.  Therefore, we find no substance  in  the  argument  of  the  learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        24.   The  next  point  to  be  considered is the allegation regarding
\nsuspicion over the death of Veerappan.  As rightly pointed out by  Mr.    A.L.
\nSomayaji,  learned  Additional Advocate General, the petitioner herself is not
\nconsistent in her stand.  In her affidavit filed in  support  of  the  present
\nwrit  petition,  when  she  said  in  one  place  that  her husband might have
\ncommitted suicide, she expressed in another place  that  he  was  administered
\nanaesthetic through  butter  milk  by  her  relatives.   Like-wise, in another
\nparagraph it is stated by her that Mr.  Jyothi Prakash Mirji, Chief of Special
\nTask Force of Karnataka had stated that whether  Veerappan  committed  suicide
\nwould be  probed.  In the affidavit she also raised doubt about the capability
\nand capacity of the three Doctors who conducted post-mortem  on  the  body  of
\nVeerappan and his associates.  According to her, they are unqualified Doctors.\n<\/p>\n
        25.   Coming  to  the  statement  said  to  have been made by Chief of
\nS.T.F., Karnataka, first of all, he is not a party in this  writ  petition  to
\nconvey his  stand.    Even  other-wise, in the light of the stand taken by the
\nState Government and the Additional Director General of Police, namely,  Chief
\nof  Special Task Force in their separate counter affidavit, we are of the view
\nthat the said allegation has not been substantiated.\n<\/p>\n
        26.  Coming to  the  allegations  made  against  post-mortem  Doctors,
\naccording  to her, all the three are unqualified and the injuries mentioned in
\ntheir report are  not  tallying  with  the  injuries  found  on  the  body  of
\nVeerappan.   In the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary, Home Department,
\nafter denying the allegations made  by  the  petitioner,  it  is  specifically
\nstated that  post-mortem  had been done by the competent medical officers.  It
\nis further stated that Dr.  R.  Vallinayagam, M.D., is a Professor of Forensic
\nMedicine attached with Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical  College  Hospital,  Salem
\nand he has put in 20 years of service and conducted post-mortem examination of
\n15,000 dead bodies.    The other Doctor namely P.D.  Subramanian has put in 32
\nyears of service as Civil Assistant Surgeon and in the course of his  duty  he
\nhas conducted  post-mortem  examination of about 5,000 dead bodies.  The other
\nDoctor namely Dr.  V.  Prabakaran has put  in  32  years  of  Civil  Assistant
\nSurgeon  and  in  the  course  of  his  duty,  he  has  conducted  post-mortem
\nexamination of about 6,000 dead bodies.  It is further stated that all of them
\nare experienced and competent in conducting post-mortem  examination  of  dead
\nbodies  involved  in  medico-legal  cases  and  in  particular  experienced in
\nconducting post-mortem  of  dead  bodies  whose  death  were  caused  by  Fire
\nArms\/Explosives.   The  other  information in the counter affidavit shows that
\nthe post-mortem started at 7.30 A.M.  on 19-10-2004.  Rigor Mortis could  have
\ndeveloped 6 hours prior to the commencement of the post-mortem.  Regarding the
\nclaim  that  exact  nature  of lacerated wound was not mentioned, it is stated
\nthat the same was mentioned in the post-mortem certificate as  injury  No.1  .
\nFurther,  injured  place  was dissected and preserved in formalin solution and
\nsent for Ballistic Analysis to  the  Forensic  Sciences  Laboratory,  Chennai.
\nFurther,  it  is  stated  that bullet entry wound will take any size and shape
\naccording to the velocity and size of the bullet subject to existence  of  any
\nintervening foreign body in between before piercing the body.  There is cavity
\nwithin skull, which is called cranial cavity in which brain is situated.  This
\nis mentioned  as  cavity  by  the  Doctor.  The bullet appears to have entered
\nthrough left side of the forehead  (entry  wound  injury  No,.1  mentioned  in
\npostmortem  certificate) and exit wound present on the right side of the lower
\npart of the occipital region  mentioned  in  the  post-mortem  certificate  as
\ninjury No.2.    Regarding the alleged injury, his further explanation was that
\nthere is bony defect 4 x 4.5 c.m.  present in the frontal bone with  radiating
\nfissures  on  right  side of the bony defect to a length of 8 c.m and the left
\nside of the bony defect to a length of 5 c.m.  He further explained  that  due
\nto high velocity of the missile ( bullets) entering into the left side cranial
\ncavity, the  left  side  of  the  orbit  was  found  to be collapsed.  This is
\nmentioned as injury No.1 in the post-mortem certificate.  Due to this, eye has
\nbeen drawn  inwards.    Except  the  cataract  mentioned  in  the  post-mortem
\ncertificate, the  eye ball was in good condition.  The eye ball was completely
\nexamined and there is no need to send ophthalmic surgeon for opinion  and  was
\nnot preserved.    It  is  also  stated  that  the entire post-mortem was video
\ngraphed.  The  details  furnished  in  the  counter  affidavit  of  the  first
\nrespondent  show  that  all the 3 post-mortem Doctors are well experienced and
\nconducted post-mortem of several dead  bodies.    Further,  as  informed,  the
\nentire post-mortem  was  video graphed.  We have also verified the injuries in
\nthe post-mortem certificates issued by the three Doctors and we are  satisfied
\nthat there is no basis for the allegations of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        27.  Regarding the claim that her husband might have committed suicide
\nafter the capture by the S.T.F and further allegation that he was administered
\nanaesthetic  substance  through  butter  milk  by  her  relative  are all only
\nhear-say and not substantiated.  As rightly pointed out,  first  of  all,  the
\npetitioner herself is not sure of her complaint and even otherwise there is no
\nbasis for her inconsistent stand regarding cause of death of her husband.\n<\/p>\n
        28.   Though  it  is stated that some fact finding authorities\/mission
\nafter enquiry reported that Veerappan and  3  others  were  given  anaesthetic
\nthrough  butter  milk  by their relatives, first of all, as pointed out in the
\ncounter affidavit of respondents 1 and 3, there is no sanctity or statutory or
\nlegal status to enquire into the action taken by the police.  In other  words,
\nthere  is  no  legal  sanctity for the said fact finding team’s report and its
\npress release on 18-1 1-2005 cannot be a ground to challenge the action  taken
\nby the  police.   In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent it is
\nspecifically stated that the self-styled  Human  Rights  Organisations,  whose
\ncompetence is disputed under the guise of Fact Finding Team go to the villages
\nand lure the innocent villagers and get some statements against the S.T.F with
\nsome ulterior  motive.   As rightly pointed out, if they are really interested
\nand if they are aware of any facts, nothing prevented them by appearing before
\nthe Revenue Divisional Officer  during  the  enquiry  and  giving  statements.
\nRespondents 1 and 3 have specifically denied the statement of the Fact Finding
\nTeam that the petitioner’s husband and his 3 associates were given anaesthetic
\nthrough  butter  milk  and third respondent has captured her husband and his 3
\nassociates after they became unconscious because of the anaesthetic.   In  the
\ncounter  affidavit  the third respondent has specifically denied that all such
\naverments  are  hearsay,  false  and  baseless  and   do   not   deserve   any
\nconsideration.   Except  the  allegation  in  the affidavit of the petitioner,
\ninasmuch as the so-called organisations are not approved either by  the  Human
\nRights  Commission  or authorised by the State Government, their statements in
\nthe light of the specific denial by respondents 1 and 3  cannot  be  taken  as
\nauthentic.   Further,  the better course for the so-called organisations is to
\nhighlight the same before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who was appointed to
\ngo into the death of Veerappan and his associates.  Hence, we  hold  that  all
\nthe  contrary  averments  in  the affidavit of the petitioner are liable to be
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
        29.  Though we are satisfied with the facts and materials placed  that
\nthere is  no  substance  in  the  allegation  made  by the petitioner, Mr.  R.
\nSankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on several  decisions
\nwhich we  will refer hereunder.  The first decision relied on by him is in the
\ncase of SAWINDER SINGH GROVER, RE [1 994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1464] which
\nrelated to custodial death.  It further reveals the Attorney General  appeared
\nfor the Government conceded for investigation by C.B.I.  The other decision in
\nINDER SINGH  v.  STATE OF PUNJAB [1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1653] related
\nto abduction of 7 persons in the age group  of  85  to  14  by  senior  police
\nofficer.   The  Honourable  Supreme  Court after finding that the State police
\nacting leisurely and in irresponsible manner, ordered C.B.  I  enquiry.    The
\nother decision  in  KASHMERI DEVI v.  DELHI ADMINISTRATION<\/a> [1988 Supreme Court
\nCases (Cri) 864] pertained to death in police custody for which C.B.I  enquiry
\nwas ordered.  The  fourth decision is in K.G.  KANNABIRAN v.  CHIEF SECRETARY,
\nGOVERNMENT OF A.P., [1997 (4) Andhra Law Times Reports 541].  In that case one
\nThiru T.  Madhusudan Raj Yadav, Secretary of an Organisation, was shot dead by
\npolice as a Naxalite in an alleged encounter.  The Supreme Court after finding
\nthat the said organisation is not a  banned  one  and  in  the  light  of  the
\npeculiar factual position, directed the C.B.I.  to conduct enquiry.  The fifth
\ndecision is  in  NILABATI BEHERA v.  STATE OF ORISSA<\/a> [1993 Supreme Court Cases
\n(cri) 527] which also relates to custodial death  wherein  the  Supreme  Court
\ndirected the  State  Government  to  pay  compensation.  There is no order for
\nenquiry by C.B.I.  The sixth decision is in  the  case  of  RAGHBIR  SINGH  v.
\nSTATE  OF  HARYANA<\/a>  [1980 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 526] which also relates to
\ncustodial death.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the death of  a  person
\ntaken for  interrogation.   Here again, no order was passed for enquiry by the
\nC.B.I.  The seventh decision relied on by him is in L.  VIJAY KUMAR v.  PUBLIC
\nPROSECUTOR, A.P., [air 1978 S.C.  1485] in and by  which  since  the  criminal
\ncase  relating  to  the incident was pending, the Supreme Court deprecated the
\ncash award ordered by the Government.  Here again, there is no order for C.B.I
\nenquiry and the facts in that case is not applicable to the case on  hand  and
\nthe same  are  distinguishable.    The  eighth  case  referred to by him is in
\nSHAKILA ABIDUL GAFAR KHAN v.  VASANT  RAGHUNATH  DHOBLE<\/a>  [2003  Supreme  Court
\nCases (Cri) 1918 which relates to inflicting injuries in custody.  Here again,
\nno order  for  C.B.I  enquiry.   The ninth decision is in the case of NIRANJAN
\nSINGH v.  PRABHAKAR RAJARAM KHAROTA<\/a> [1980 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 508] which
\nalso relates to torture and injuries in custody.  Here  again,  no  order  for
\nC.B.I enquiry.    The  tenth  decision  relied  on  by him is in RAMESHCHANDRA
\nNANDLAL PARIKH v.  STATE OF GUJARAT<\/a>  [2006  (1)  Supreme  195]  wherein  Their
\nLordships  have  held  that  second  complaint  is  not in respect of the same
\nincident of malfeasance and misfeasance and that it cannot be  quashed.    The
\nsaid decision  is  not  applicable to the present case.  The eleventh decision
\nrelied on by the petitioner is in KHEDAT MAZDOOR CHETNA SANGATH v.   STATE  OF
\nM.P.<\/a>   [1994  Supreme  Court  Cases  (Cri)  1643]  which relates to protest by
\ntribals against construction of Sardar Sarovar Dam on the  river  of  Narmada,
\nfor which  the Supreme Court ordered C.B.I enquiry.  The said decision is also
\nnot applicable to the case on hand.  In the case of R.S.  SODHI v.   STATE  OF
\nU.P  [1994  Supreme  Court  Cases  (Cri)  248]  ten  persons were killed in an
\nencounter by Punjab Militants and local police.  In order to clear  doubts  in
\nthe minds of police, the Supreme Court ordered C.B.I enquiry.  Considering the
\nfactual  details  furnished  and  the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer
\nrelating to the said incident, we are of the view that the  said  decision  is
\nalso not  applicable to the case on hand.  The next decision is in the case of
\nD.K.  BASU v.  STATE OF W.B.,<\/a> reported in 1997 Supreme Court  Cases  (Cri)  92
\nwhich  also relates to custodial death, wherein the Supreme Court has directed
\npayment of compensation.  The last decision relied on by the petitioner is  in
\nthe case  of UPKAR SINGH v.  VED PRAKASH,<\/a> reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases
\n(Cri) 211 wherein the Supreme  Court  has  held  that  counter-  complaint  is
\npermissible and  not  prohibited  under  Code  of Criminal Procedure.  We will
\ndiscuss the applicability of the said decisions  in  the  later  part  of  our
\norder.  As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, all
\nthe decisions relied  on  by  Mr.  R.  Sankarasubbu relate to custodial death,
\ntorture\/causing injuries in custody etc., and awarding  compensation  for  the
\nvictims.   Considering  the  attitude  and  stand taken by the Government, the
\nSupreme Court ordered C.B.I enquiry in those cases.\n<\/p>\n
        30.  Learned Additional Advocate General has brought to our notice the
\norder passed by the Honourable First Bench of this Court dated  11-02-2006  in
\nWrit Petition  No.    41405  of 2005 filed by the very same petitioner namely,
\nMrs.   Muthulakshmi  praying  to  issue  a  writ  of  mandamus  directing  the
\nrespondents  (Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  Government  of  Karnataka)  to
\nprosecute the offenders under the Indian Penal Code and to pay compensation of
\na sum of Rs.10,00,000\/- to all the victims separately who are all affected  by
\nthe Joint  Special  Task  Force  (JSTF).  Their Lordships, after recording the
\nfact that report of Justice A.J.  Sadashiva was under consideration before the
\nNational Human Rights Commission, and that the remedy of the petitioner is  to
\nmove the National Human Rights Commission for appropriate reliefs, disposed of
\nthe  said  writ  petition  with  a  liberty  to the petitioner to approach the
\nCommission for appropriate relief.  In this regard, it is  relevant  to  point
\nout  that National Human Rights Commission appointed a panel headed by Justice
\nA.J.  Sadashiva to enquire into alleged excess committed by the JSTF.  In para
\n10 of the counter affidavit of the first respondent it is stated that the said
\npanel submitted  its  report  to  the  National  Human  Rights  Commission  on
\n2-12-2003, and that the National Human Rights Commission sought for remarks of<\/p>\n
the State  Government.   According to the learned Additional Advocate General,
\nthe State Government have submitted  their  comments  to  the  National  Human
\nRights Commission.\n<\/p>\n
        31.  In T.T.  ANTONY v.  STATE OF KERALA,<\/a> reported in (2001) 6 Supreme
\nCourt  Cases 181, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that there could be no
\nsecond First Information Report (F.I.R) and no fresh investigation on  receipt
\nof  every  subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or
\nsame occurrence giving rise  to  one  or  more  cognizable  offences.    Their
\nLordships  have  further  held  that  only  information  about commission of a
\ncognizable offence which was first entered in station house diary  by  officer
\nin  charge  of the police station could be regarded as F.I.R under Section 154
\nCr.P.C.  and that all such subsequent information will be covered  by  Section\n<\/p>\n
162.   It was further held that officer in charge of the police station has to
\ninvestigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the F.I.R  but  also
\nother  connected  offences  found  to have been committed in the course of the
\nsame transaction or the same occurrence  and  file  one  or  more  reports  as
\nprovided in  Section  173.    It  was  also  held  that  after  conclusion  of
\ninvestigation pursuant to filing of the F.I.R and submission of  report  under
\nSection  173 (2), the officer in charge of the police station comes across any
\nfurther information pertaining to the  same  incident,  he  can  make  further
\ninvestigation,  normally  with  the leave of the court and forward the further
\nevidence, if any collected, with  further  report  or  reports  under  Section
\n173(8).  It  is  true  that the above decision in T.T.  Antony’s case has been
\ntaken into consideration by the Honourable Supreme  Court  in  the  subsequent
\ndecision in Upkar Singh’s case [2005 S.C.C.  (Cri) 211] cited supra.  It makes
\nit clear  that filing a counter complaint is permissible.  The latest position
\nas seen from the Upkar Singh’s  case  is  that  prohibition  noticed  in  T.T.
\nAntony’s case (cited supra) does not apply to counter complaint to the accused
\nin  the  first  complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the
\nsaid incident.  In view of the legal position as enunciated in  Upkar  Singh’s
\ncase, the complaint\/ representation dated 8-11-2004 though is maintainable, as
\nrightly  pointed  out,  since  the  entire  incident  was  probed  by  the Sub
\nDivisional Magistrate-Revenue Divisional Officer, the same  was  forwarded  to
\nthe Deputy Superintendent of Police-investigation officer, Dharmapuri Town who
\nin  turn placed the same before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue
\nDivisional Officer in his report in para 59 has accepted the  receipt  of  the
\nsame reference  in  C.S.R.  383\/2004 from the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
\nDharmapuri for his enquiry.  He also observed that all the connected papers in
\nthe C.S.R.383\/2004 were received and filed in his enquiry  and  the  same  was
\nenclosed as  an annexure.  In such a circumstance, we are of the view that the
\ngrievance of the petitioner had been  gone  into  by  the  Revenue  Divisional
\nOfficer  and  his  enquiry report covers the complaint of the petitioner dated
\n8-11-2004.\n<\/p>\n
        32.   Learned  Additional  Advocate  General  heavily  relied  on  the
\nobservation  and conclusion made by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in
\nVANDANA VIKAS WAGHMARE v.  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,  reported  in  1998  Crl.L.J.
\n4295.   It  relates  to an encounter between group of underworld criminals and
\nthe police.  The Division Bench after finding that within the precinet of  the
\nMetropolis  of  Mumbai,  the  encounters  between  the underworld dons and the
\npolice take place and in which either of the parties, is being killed, and  on
\ngoing  through  the  factual details furnished by both parties, have concluded
\nthat ” we are fully satisfied that the activities of  the  police  in  dealing
\nwith the three dreaded gangsters are within the legal ambit and that they have
\nnot  done  anything  beyond,  for,  Section  100  of the Indian Penal Code and
\nSection 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 13 9  of  the  Bombay
\nPolice Manual, Vol.    VIII provides proper guidance to the police party.  The
\nDivision Bench has also held:  (para 33)<\/p>\n
“33.   While accepting the case of the police, we find that there is no reason
\nto discard what has stated by the three police officers on oath and the police
\nofficers resisted the case of the petitioners, particularly when the  deceased
\nwere involved in number of serious crimes.  There is no basis for ordering the
\nenquiry  by  any other agency, and if so, it is bound to demoralise the police
\nforce and dissuade them from doing their lawful duty.  Therefore, in our view,
\nit would be against the public interest to order the judicial enquiry or other
\nenquiries as asked for unless there is good reason to hold  prima  facie  that
\nthe case of encounter made out was false.”\n<\/p>\n
        33.   Learned  Additional  Advocate  General  heavily  relied  on  the
\nfollowing conclusion\/direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ABDUL KAREEN v.
\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA [(2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 710]:  (para 31)<\/p>\n
“31.  What causes us the gravest disquiet is that when, not so very long back,
\nas the record shows, his gang had been considerably reduced, Veerappan was not
\npursued and apprehended and now, as the statements in the affidavit  filed  on
\nbehalf  of  the State of Tamil Nadu show, Veerappan is operating in the forest
\nthat has been his hideout for 10 years or more along with  secessionist  Tamil
\nelements.   It  seems to us certain that Veerappan will continue with his life
\nof  crime  and  very  likely  that  those  crimes  will   have   anti-national
\nobjectives.”\n<\/p>\n
In  the  concurrent  judgement,  Sabharwal, J., (as His Lordship then was) has
\nheld:  (para 44 and 45)<\/p>\n
“44.  Besides the eight questions noticed in the main judgment,  the  question
\nand  aspect  of  association  of  Veerappan  with  those  having  secessionist
\naspirations were also not considered.    Further,  though  it  may  have  been
\nconsidered  as to what happened on 1st August, immediately after the abduction
\nof Rajkumar, but what does not seem to have been considered is that those were
\nspontaneous outbursts and the authorities may have been taken unaware but what
\nwould be the ground realities when the law-enforcing agencies have  sufficient
\ntime to prepare for any apprehended contingency.\n<\/p>\n
        45.   The application and order under Section 321 is a result of panic
\nreaction by overzealous persons without proper understanding  of  the  problem
\nand  consideration  of  the  relevant  materials  though they may not have any
\npersonal motive.    It  does  not  appear  that  anybody  considered  that  if
\ndemocratically-elected  governments give an impression to the citizens of this
\ncountry of being lawbreakers, would it not breed contempt for  law;  would  it
\nnot invite  citizens to become a law onto themselves.  It may lead to anarchy.
\nThe Governments have to consider and balance the choice between maintenance of
\nlaw and order and anarchy.  It does not appear  that  anyone  considered  this
\naspect.   It  yielded  to  the  pressure tactics of those who according to the
\nGovernment are out to terrorise the police force and to  overawe  the  elected
\nGovernments.   It  does  not  appear  that  any one considered that with their
\naction people may lose faith in the democratic process, when they  see  public
\nauthority flouted  and  the  helplessness  of  the  Government.  The aspect of
\nparalysing and discrediting the democratic authority  had  to  be  taken  into
\nconsideration.   It is the executive function to decide in the public interest
\nto withdraw from prosecution as claimed, but it is also for the Government  to
\nmaintain its existence.  The self-preservation is the most pervasive aspect of
\nsovereignty.  To preserve its independence and territories is the highest duty
\nof  every  nation and to attain these ends nearly all other considerations are
\nto be subordinated.  Of course, it is for the State to consider these  aspects
\nand take  a conscious decision.  In the present case, without consideration of
\nthese aspects the decision was taken to withdraw TADA charges.  It is  evident
\nfrom material now placed on record before this Court that Veerappan was acting
\nin consultation with secessionist organisations\/groups which had the object of
\nliberation of Tamil from India.  There is no serious challenge to this aspect.
\nNone  of the aforesaid aspects were considered by the Government or the Public
\nProsecutors before having recourse to Section 321 Cr.P.C.”\n<\/p>\n
The  above observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case filed
\nby Abdul Kareem, father of a police Sub Inspector who was allegedly killed  by
\nVeerappan  and  his  men,  opposed the Special Public Prosecutor’s application
\nunder Section 321 Cr.P.C.  seeking consent of the Designated Court to withdraw
\nthe TADA charges levelled against some of the associates who are  in  judicial
\ncustody and withdrawal of detention order and the Government also revoking the<\/p>\n
order  of  detention  of  those  detained  under N.S.A and to facilitate their
\nrelease.  The observation\/conclusion in the above paragraphs also speak  about
\nVeerappan and his associates.\n<\/p>\n
        34.  In SECRETARY v.  SAHNGOO RAM ARYA, reported in (2 002) 5  Supreme
\nCourt  Cases  521, the Honourable Supreme Court has pointed out that when High
\nCourt can direct inquiry by CBI while exercising power under  Article  226  of
\nthe Constitution.  Para 5 and 6 are relevant:\n<\/p>\n
“5.  While none can dispute the power of the High Court under Article  226  to
\ndirect  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
\na need 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
\nconsideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion  that  the  material
\nbefore it  is  sufficient  to  direct  such  an  inquiry  by  CBI.   This is a
\nrequirement which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in  the
\ncase of Common  Cause  (1999) 6 SCC 667 :  1999 SCC (Cri) 1196.  This Court in
\nthe said judgment at paragraph 174 of the Report has held thus:  (SCC p.75  0,
\npara 174)<\/p>\n
“174.   The  other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate ‘any
\nother offence’ is wholly  erroneous  and  cannot  be  sustained.    Obviously,
\ndirection  for investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima faicie,
\nfound to have been committed  or  a  person’  s  involvement  is  prima  facie
\nestablished,  but  a  direction  to  CBI to investigate whether any person has
\ncommitted an offence or not cannot be legally given.  Such a  direction  would
\nbe  contrary  to the concept and philosophy of ‘LIFE’ and ‘LIBERTY’ guaranteed
\nto a person under Article 21 of  the  Constitution.    This  direction  is  in
\ncomplete  negation  of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of
\n‘LIFE’ has been explained in a  manner  which  has  infused  ‘LIFE’  into  the
\nletters of Article 21.”\n<\/p>\n
6.   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
\nby  the  police  or CBI to find out whether he has committed any offence or is
\nliving as a law-abiding citizen.  Therefore, it is clear that  a  decision  to
\ndirect  an  inquiry by CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court
\nafter considering the material on record  comes  to  a  conclusion  that  such
\nmaterial  does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI
\nor any other similar agency, and the same  cannot  be  done  as  a  matter  of
\nroutine or merely because a party makes some such allegations.  In the instant
\ncase,  we see that the High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that
\nthere is a prima facie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded  on
\nthe  basis  of  “ifs”  and  “buts” and thought it appropriate that the inquiry
\nshould be made by CBI.  With respect, we  think  that  this  is  not  what  is
\nrequired  by  the  law  as laid down by this Court in the case of Common cause
\n(1999) 6 SCC 667.”\n<\/p>\n
The above decision of the Supreme Court makes it clear that  unless  materials
\nplaced  before  this  Court  disclosed  a  prima  facie  case  calling  for an
\ninvestigation by the C.B.I or any other similar agency,  the  same  cannot  be
\ndone as a matter of routine or merely on the basis of some allegations made by
\nparty.\n<\/p>\n
        35.  It  is  also  relevant  to  note  that in ALLIRAJ GOUNDER v.  THE
\nINSPECTOF OF POLICE,<\/a> reported in 2005 (3) CTC 673, First Bench of  this  Court
\nafter referring to a decision in C.B.I.  v.  RAJESH GANDHI, 1997 Crl.L.J.  63,
\nhas  stated that an accused cannot have a say as to who should investigate the
\noffence he is charged with.  In the  said  decision,  the  Supreme  Court  has
\nobserved  that  the decision to investigate or decision on agency which should
\ninvestigate does not attract the principles of natural justice.  In the  light
\nof  the  decision  of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench has concluded that
\n“in our opinion the same principle applies  to  complainants  also,  and  they
\ncannot  ordinarily have a say as to which agency should investigate an alleged
\ncriminal offence.”\n<\/p>\n
        36.  In the case on hand, we have  already  referred  to  the  factual
\ndetails  furnished  in  the  form of counter affidavit by respondents 1 and 3.
\nEven the complaint\/representation of the petitioner dated 8-11-2004 in view of
\nconstitution of an enquiry by the Government, the same had been  forwarded  to
\nenquiring authority,  namely,  Revenue  Divisional  Officer.  Further, we have
\nalready found that the allegations that  Veerappan  and  his  associates  were
\ncaptured three days prior to the incident and tortured and he was administered
\nanaesthetic  material  due to which he and his associates killed have not been
\nsubstantiated.  On the other hand, the materials furnished by  the  respondent
\nshow  that  there is no basis for the same including the doubts raised against
\nthe competency of the  post-mortem  doctors  regarding  the  cause  of  death.
\nFurther,  from  all  the  relevant materials, including the post-mortem report
\nvideo gram taken at the time of  postmortem,  photos  with  negatives  to  the
\nRevenue  Divisional  Officer by the investigation officer in Dharmapuri Police
\nStation Crime No.  1221\/2004, we are satisfied that no sufficient material was
\nput-forth to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is need  for  enquiry
\nby C.B.I.\n<\/p>\n
        37.   It  is  also  relevant  to  refer  that the incident occurred on
\n18-10-2004, and that  on  the  next  day  i.e.,  on  19-10-2004  the  District
\nCollector in  ROC  No.   58187\/04\/C1, has ordered an enquiry under Section 150
\n(3) of Police Standing Order into the death of Veerappan and  his  associates.
\nIn  the  counter affidavit filed by the Government, it is stated that based on
\nthe said proceedings, the Sub Divisional  Magistrate  and  Revenue  Divisional
\nOfficer,  Dharmapuri  have issued notices to the general public intimating the
\ndate of magisterial enquiry, as 1-11-2004 and 2-11-2004.  It is  also  brought
\nto  our  notice  that  after  notice to all the persons concerned, the Revenue
\nDivisional Officer completed the enquiry  and  submitted  his  report  to  the
\nGovernment through the District Collector on 31-03-2005.  The report discloses
\nthat during enquiry 196 witnesses have been examined.  The petitioner, wife of
\nthe  deceased  Veerappan  also  appeared  and  gave  statement in the enquiry.
\nExpert  reports  from  Biology,  Serology,   Ballistic,   Viscera,   Physical,
\nexplosive,  etc.,  have  been  obtained  and  considered by Revenue Divisional
\nOfficer.  Considering all the  statements  obtained  from  the  witnesses  and
\nreports,   the  Revenue  Divisional  Officer  has  concluded  that  it  is  an
\nintelligence operation which was evolved and in such an operation, the Special
\nTask Force personnel was left with no other option except to open fire in self
\ndefence and in their attempt to apprehend or arrest the said dreaded criminals
\nVeerappan and three others.  The report further shows that  in  the  encounter
\nVeerappan, Chandregowda,  Sethumani  and  Sethukuli Govindan were killed.  The
\nRevenue Divisional Officer concluded that the action of the S.T.F.   personnel
\nis  justified  and  the  Government  have accepted the findings of the Revenue
\nDivisional Officer and issued orders.\n<\/p>\n
        38.  In the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied  that  the
\nmaterials  do  not disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by
\nthe C.B.I., accordingly, the writ petition filed by Muthulakshmi is liable  to
\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        39.   In  the  initial  order dated 4-2-2005, learned Single Judge has
\ndirected the Inspector of Police to whom the complaint of the petitioner dated
\n8-11-2004 has been given to take the complaint on file and register  the  same
\nforthwith without any delay, however, on mentioning, by subsequent order dated
\n7-2-2005,  directed  the  Inspector  of  Police  to  take it on file after the
\ncompletion of the enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, which
\nshall be completed within a period of one month.  Aggrieved by the said order,
\nHome Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu and others filed  Writ  Appeal
\nNo.  479  of 2005.  Though counter-complaint is permissible and not prohibited
\nunder Cr.P.C., as enunciated in Upkar Singh’s case (2005 Supreme  Court  cases
\n(cri)  211),  inasmuch  as  the same had been forwarded to the enquiry officer
\ni.e., Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer and the same is
\npart of enquiry record\/proceedings and  taking  note  of  the  fact  that  the
\ncomplainant\/  writ  petitioner  herself  made  a statement and enquired by the
\nenquiry officer, we are of the view that the direction of  the  learned  Judge
\ndated 7-2-2005 is not warranted and in any event cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
        40.   Though  the  petitioner has prayed for several directions in the
\nform of writ  miscellaneous  petitions  pending  disposal  of  the  main  writ
\npetition,  in  the light of our conclusion holding that the petitioner has not
\nmade out a case for enquiry by  C.B.I.,  those  petitions  are  liable  to  be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        41.  In the  result,  Writ  Appeal  No.  479 of 2005 is allowed.  Writ
\nPetition No.  3009 of 2005 is dismissed; and connected W.P.  M.Ps.,  are  also
\ndismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                ******<\/p>\n
        After pronouncement  of  judgment  in  the  above  matter,  Mr.     R.
\nSankarasubbu,  learned  counsel  appearing  for the petitioner, seeks leave to
\nAppeal to the Supreme Court.  Inasmuch as we followed the principles laid down
\nby the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we do not find any justification in the  request
\nmade by the learned counsel.  Hence, the same is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
Index:- Yes
\nInternet:- Yes<\/p>\n
R.B.\n<\/p>\n
To:-\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary to the Government,
\nDepartment of Home,
\nFort St.  George, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Director General of Police,
\nD.G.P.Office, Mylapore,
\nChennai-4.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Additional Director General of Police,
\nSpecial Task Force, Sathiyamangalam,
\nErode District.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Revenue Divisional Officer,
\nDharmapuri District.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Station House Officer,
\nKolathur Police Station,
\nDharmapuri District.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The Joint Director,
\nCentral Bureau of Investigation,
\nHaddows Road, Chennai-6.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 02\/03\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR Writ Appeal No. 479 of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 3009 of 2005, and […]<\/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-236507","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 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\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-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=\"2006-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-24T06:58:31+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=\"51 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-24T06:58:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":10140,\"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\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006\",\"name\":\"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-24T06:58:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 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":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 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\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-24T06:58:31+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":"51 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-24T06:58:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006"},"wordCount":10140,"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\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006","name":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-24T06:58:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-mrs-muthulakshmi-petitioner-on-2-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 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\/236507","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=236507"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236507\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}