woman files DV case as a counter blast to a civil case. also files contempt of court on police !! every1 screamning violence agnst woman on rise !!! A thought crosses our minds, can men do the same ?? what a silly question my brothers !! :-( men can't file DV cases on other males !!!! :-(
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED.14.06.2012
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. MATHIVANAN
Cont.P.No.30 of 2010
And Sub. Appl.No.189 of 2010
Tmt.Anitha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mr.John Sundar
Inspector of Police,
Rajamangalam PS
Villivakkam,
Chennai.
2.Mr.Rajendran IPS
The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai 8. ... Respondents
Prayer in Cont.P.No.30 of 2010: Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying to punish the respondents for disobeying the lawful order of this court dated 29.10.2009 and made in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009.
Prayer in Sub. Appl.No.189 of 2010: Petition is filed under Section 195 r/w. 340 Cr.P.C, praying to make a complaint to the Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction against the respondent/accused in Sub-Application to prosecute him for the offence under Section 177, 181, 182, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203 and 209 of IPC.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Jaishankar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Maran
(Addl. Public Prosecutor)
C O M M O N O R D E R
1. The contempt petition No.30 of 2009 and Sub.Appl.No.189 of 2010 have been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act and under Section 195 r/w. Section 340 of Cr.P.C., respectively seeking the relief of punishing the respondents in Contempt Petition for having disobeyed the order of this court dated 29.10.2009 and made in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 to make a complaint to the Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction against the respondent/accused in Sub-Application to prosecute him for the offence under Section 177, 181, 182, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203 and 209 of IPC.
2. The petitioners in these two application is one and the same and the respondents are also one and the same. Hence these two applications have been clubbed together, heard jointly and disposed of in this common order.
3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of these two petitions are as under;
One Balamurugan S/o.Jagan Narayanasamy is the tenant of the petitioner. He had fabricated a will after forging the signature of one Late V.R.Govindaraj who is none other than the grandfather of the petitioner to make it appear that he is the adopted son of V.R.Govindaraj and that the testator had bequeathed his property to him. On the strength of the forged will the said Balamurugan with the active assistance of one Balakrishnan had obtained a letter of administration from this court. When this fact came to the knowledge of the mother of the petitioner, she had filed a suit in TOS.No.16 of 2006 before this court for revocation of the letter of administration. The suit was allowed and the order of probate granted in favour of the said Balamurugan was revoked and now the said TOS.No.16 of 2006 is pending on the file of this court. On the strength of a complaint lodged by the mother of the petitioner a case in Crime No.583 of 2003 was registered on the file of the Korattur Police Station, Chennai and the same is still pending.
4. After revocation of the letter of administration, in order to wreck vengeance, the said Balamurugan with the aid of Balakrishnan had been giving physical and mental torture to the family of the petitioner causing threat to their life and liberty frequently. The said Balakrishnan who is also a tenant in the house of the petitioner have been abusing the petitioner using un-parliamentary words and doing eve teasing when the ladies from the house of the petitioner goes for taking bath, which caused mental agony and fear and insecurity in the minds of the petitioner as well as her age old mother and sister.
5. In this connection, the petitioner had preferred a complaint dated 18.10.2009 and she was also informed by the Police that suitable action will be taken against the said Balamurugan and Balakrishnan. Since no action was taken by the police on her complaint preferred on 18.10.2009, the petitioner on 19.10.2009 had sent an SMS from her mobile phone to the Chennai City Police Emergency Mobile Phone Complaint Cell for which she had received a reply saying that her complaint would be forwarded to the concerned Police Officers of Chennai City Police and subsequently, she was instructed to lodge a written complaint before the Rajamangalam Police Station.
6. Accordingly the petitioner had been to the first respondent police and on the same day she had lodged a written complaint. However, they had refused to receive the complaint and on account of this reason she had sent a written complaint to the first respondent by speed post with acknowledgment due after marking a copy to the second respondent.
7. That on 22.10.2009 at about 08.45pm., a constable from the first respondent Police Station came to the house of the petitioner and compelled her to come to the Police Station for enquiry. Then the petitioner had immediately sent complaint through SMS to Chennai City Police through her mobile phone and on receipt of her complaint through SMS, the Chennai City Police had sent reply that her complaint would be forwarded to the concerned Chennai City Police. On the next day i.e., on 23.10.2009, the petitioner was called by the Chennai City Control Room Police and made a detailed enquiry through the phone regarding her complaint given through SMS for which she had also made a detailed reply.
8. Despite the eve teasing activities of the said Balamurugan and Balakrishnan was brought the notice, of the petitioner that the police being the law enforcing authority had colluded with those persons and refrained from taking legitimate action. Under this circumstance, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 before this court after invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the first respondent police to register a case based on her complaint dated 19.10.2009. After hearing both sides this court had passed an order on 29.10.2009 directing the respondent police to complete the enquiry within two weeks and to proceed in accordance with the law.
9. With the respondent has not complied with the direction of this court dated 29.10.2009, the petitioner had sent a representation to the first respondent on 04.11.2009 requesting him to comply with the order of this court. Since there was no response on the other end, she had sent a detailed petition to the second respondent on 10.11.2009 and this was ended in vain. Without any other option, the petitioner had sent a contempt notice to both the respondents on 24.11.2009.
10. Despite the complaint, lodged by the petitioner, discloses cognizable offences, the first respondent police had miserably failed to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner for the reasons best known to him. The direction of this court by order dated 29.10.2009 and made in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 was also not complied with by the respondents.
11. At the time of passing of the order dated 29.10.2009 in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 the first respondent Mr.John Sundar had been holding the post of the Inspector of Police attached to Rajamangalam Police Station at Villivakkam, Chennai and the second respondent Mr.Rajendran IPS was functioning as The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai. When the order was passed by this court on dated 29.10.2009 they both were lawfully bound to implement the order, but they have wantonly and deliberately disobeyed the order of this court.
12. During the pendency of the contempt petition No.30 of 2010, the first respondent, on 12.03.2010 has filed his counter affidavit but the second respondent has not chosen to file his affidavit objecting the averment of the contempt petition.
13. In paragraph No.5 of his counter affidavit dated 12.03.2010, the first respondent Mr.John Sundar has stated as under;
"I respectfully submit that based upon the order of the Honourable High Court, Madras both parties have been called for enquiry and the statements have been recorded and the enquiry disclosed that the complaint itself is false one, since there is a civil dispute pending between them relating to the will which has been executed by Govindaraj and the matter is still pending before the Honourable High Court, Madras. On completion of the total enquiry, it reveals that the complaint itself is a false one and I informed the same to the parties concerned on 08.11.2009 itself."
14. Mr.T.Jaishankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that this court in its order dated 29.10.2009, and made in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009, has specifically directed to complete the enquiry on the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 19.10.2009 within a period of two weeks and proceed in accordance with the law. However, the respondents had miserably failed and neglected to comply with the direction of this court.
15. Countering his arguments, Mr.M.Babu Muthu Maran the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that in pursuant to the direction of this court, the first respondent had enquired into the matter and registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2011 under Section 294(b), 506(ii), 509 of IPC and under Section 4 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as against the accused persons and hence, it could not be stated that the order of this court was willfully neglected and disobeyed by the respondents.
16. Mr.T.Jaishankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also adverted to that the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents were absolutely false and in fact they had not completed the enquiry within the stipulated period of two weeks as directed by this court and therefore, this petitioner was constrained to file this Contempt Petition No.30 of 2010 for punishing the respondents in accordance with the proviso to Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act.
17. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner has also filed a sub application in Sub.Appl.No.189 of 2010 wherein he had contended that in the counter affidavit dated 12.03.2010 filed by the 1st respondent in the present petition in paragraph 5, he has stated that the parties were called for enquiry and their statements were recorded and it revealed that the complaint itself is a false one as there is a civil case pending between them relating to the will.
18. In this connection Mr.T.Jaishankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the first respondent being a public servant is expected to furnish correct information to the court and that the first respondent had not even chosen to produce a copy of the statements alleged to have been recorded from the petitioner as well as from the accused persons who had committed the offence of eve-teasing. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this sub-application in the form of complaint requesting the court to make a preliminary enquiry for the offences under Sections 177, 181, 182, 189, 200, 201, 202, 203 and 209 of IPC alleged to have been committed by the first respondent in relation to the proceedings of contempt petition as contemplated under Sub-Clause (b) to Sub-Section (1) to Section 195 of Cr.P.C.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that this court might record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing, forward it to a Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction and also to take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate.
20. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that on receipt of the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 19.10.2009, the first respondent had assigned a CSR No.332 of 2009 on 22.10.2009 and during the pendency of that complaint, the petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 seeking a direction to the respondent to register a case. When that petition came up for hearing, it was represented on behalf of the respondents stating that a petition enquiry was pending in that matter and this court had therefore, given a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of two weeks and act in accordance with the law. The learned public prosecutor has also submitted that in pursuant to the direction of this court dated 29.10.2009 and made in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009, the first respondent had enquired and submitted a report that the complaint was closed on the ground of civil in nature and therefore, the petitioner had come forward with this petition viz., Cont.P.No.30 of 2010. When this petition came up of hearing on 19.01.2011, this court had specifically has directed the respondents to register an FIR and report to the court as the allegations seemed to be serious.
21. In this regard, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has canvassed that even prior to the passing of the order dated 10.01.2011, the first respondent was transferred from RajamangalamPolice Station to Otteri Police Station from 09.06.2010, and one Mr.Sibukumar was the successor in office of the first respondent. He has also added that Mr.Sibukumar had registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2011, and taken up the investigation and after completion of investigation he had laid a final report before the learned V Metropolitan Magistgrate, Egmore, Chennai on 03.08.2011 under Section 294(b), 506(ii), 509 of IPC and under Section 4 if Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, and the case had not been taken on file so far. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the successor in office Mr.Sibukumar, had registered the case within the stipulated period of two weeks as directed by this court in the order dated 19.01.2011 and after completion of the investigation the charge sheet was also filed before the competent court of law and therefore, there is no need to make a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., as requested by the petitioner.
22. This Court has carefully perused the averments of the contempt petition, the avernments of the sub-application as well as the averments of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. In fact, the second respondent, has not chosen to file his counter affidavit.
23. It is manifested from the records that the petitioner had filed her complaint on 19.10.2009 before the first respondent police. Subsequently, CSR.No.223 of 2009 was assigned to the complaint on 22.10.2009. It is obvious to note here that during the pendency of the complaint on the file of the first respondent, the petitioner had come forward with the petition in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 seeking a direction to register a case. When the petition came up for hearing, the learned public prosecutor had submitted that a petition enquiry was pending on that complaint and therefore, this court while disposing the petition in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 had given a direction to the respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of two weeks and act in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petition enquiry was completed and the complaint was also closed as civil in nature as a testamentary original suit was pending before this court with regard to the will. Only under this circumstances, the petitioner has come forward with the present contempt petition under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents alleging that they have committed willful disobedience in complying with the direction of this court.
24. It is significant to note here that the contempt petition came up for hearing before this court on 19.01.2011. This court considering the seriousness of the allegations of the complaint, had directed the respondent police to register an FIR and report to the court. As rightly argued by the learned public prosecutor that on 09.06.2010, the first respondent police was transferred to Otteri Police Station from Rajamangalam Police Station and his successor in office one Sibukumar had assumed charge. As directed by this court Mr.Sibukumar, Inspector of Police had registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2011 on 09.02.2011 and he had also taken up the investigation and after the completion of the investigation he had filed a final report before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 03.08.2011 under Section 294(b), 506(ii), 509 of IPC and under Section 4 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.
25. It is obvious to note here that this contempt petition has not been filed based on the order dated 19.10.2011 and made in Cont.P.No.30 of 2010, directing the respondent police to register an FIR and report to court. While passing this order on 19.10.2011, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had sought two weeks time for reporting compliance. But this contempt petition has been filed only on the basis of the earlier order passed by this court on 29.10.2010 in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009.
26. If at all the period of two weeks has to be computed it should be from 19.01.2011 as undertaken by the learned public prosecutor and this case was registered within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or from the date of passing of the order. Therefore, this court is of considered view that there is no delay in registering the case. Further this court is also of the considered view that the first respondent has not supplied any false information to this court. Therefore, the necessity of making a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., does not arise.
Keeping in view of these facts these petitions are liable to be dismissed.
14.06.2012
T.MATHIVANAN,J
prm
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
prm
To:
1.Mr.John Sundar
Inspector of Police,
Rajamangalam PS
Villivakkam,
Chennai.
2.Mr.Rajendran IPS
The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai 8.
3.The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court, Chennai
Cont.P.No.30 of 2010
And Sub. Appl.No.189 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED.14.06.2012
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. MATHIVANAN
Cont.P.No.30 of 2010
And Sub. Appl.No.189 of 2010
Tmt.Anitha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mr.John Sundar
Inspector of Police,
Rajamangalam PS
Villivakkam,
Chennai.
2.Mr.Rajendran IPS
The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai 8. ... Respondents
Prayer in Cont.P.No.30 of 2010: Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act praying to punish the respondents for disobeying the lawful order of this court dated 29.10.2009 and made in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009.
Prayer in Sub. Appl.No.189 of 2010: Petition is filed under Section 195 r/w. 340 Cr.P.C, praying to make a complaint to the Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction against the respondent/accused in Sub-Application to prosecute him for the offence under Section 177, 181, 182, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203 and 209 of IPC.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Jaishankar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Maran
(Addl. Public Prosecutor)
C O M M O N O R D E R
1. The contempt petition No.30 of 2009 and Sub.Appl.No.189 of 2010 have been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act and under Section 195 r/w. Section 340 of Cr.P.C., respectively seeking the relief of punishing the respondents in Contempt Petition for having disobeyed the order of this court dated 29.10.2009 and made in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 to make a complaint to the Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction against the respondent/accused in Sub-Application to prosecute him for the offence under Section 177, 181, 182, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203 and 209 of IPC.
2. The petitioners in these two application is one and the same and the respondents are also one and the same. Hence these two applications have been clubbed together, heard jointly and disposed of in this common order.
3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of these two petitions are as under;
One Balamurugan S/o.Jagan Narayanasamy is the tenant of the petitioner. He had fabricated a will after forging the signature of one Late V.R.Govindaraj who is none other than the grandfather of the petitioner to make it appear that he is the adopted son of V.R.Govindaraj and that the testator had bequeathed his property to him. On the strength of the forged will the said Balamurugan with the active assistance of one Balakrishnan had obtained a letter of administration from this court. When this fact came to the knowledge of the mother of the petitioner, she had filed a suit in TOS.No.16 of 2006 before this court for revocation of the letter of administration. The suit was allowed and the order of probate granted in favour of the said Balamurugan was revoked and now the said TOS.No.16 of 2006 is pending on the file of this court. On the strength of a complaint lodged by the mother of the petitioner a case in Crime No.583 of 2003 was registered on the file of the Korattur Police Station, Chennai and the same is still pending.
4. After revocation of the letter of administration, in order to wreck vengeance, the said Balamurugan with the aid of Balakrishnan had been giving physical and mental torture to the family of the petitioner causing threat to their life and liberty frequently. The said Balakrishnan who is also a tenant in the house of the petitioner have been abusing the petitioner using un-parliamentary words and doing eve teasing when the ladies from the house of the petitioner goes for taking bath, which caused mental agony and fear and insecurity in the minds of the petitioner as well as her age old mother and sister.
5. In this connection, the petitioner had preferred a complaint dated 18.10.2009 and she was also informed by the Police that suitable action will be taken against the said Balamurugan and Balakrishnan. Since no action was taken by the police on her complaint preferred on 18.10.2009, the petitioner on 19.10.2009 had sent an SMS from her mobile phone to the Chennai City Police Emergency Mobile Phone Complaint Cell for which she had received a reply saying that her complaint would be forwarded to the concerned Police Officers of Chennai City Police and subsequently, she was instructed to lodge a written complaint before the Rajamangalam Police Station.
6. Accordingly the petitioner had been to the first respondent police and on the same day she had lodged a written complaint. However, they had refused to receive the complaint and on account of this reason she had sent a written complaint to the first respondent by speed post with acknowledgment due after marking a copy to the second respondent.
7. That on 22.10.2009 at about 08.45pm., a constable from the first respondent Police Station came to the house of the petitioner and compelled her to come to the Police Station for enquiry. Then the petitioner had immediately sent complaint through SMS to Chennai City Police through her mobile phone and on receipt of her complaint through SMS, the Chennai City Police had sent reply that her complaint would be forwarded to the concerned Chennai City Police. On the next day i.e., on 23.10.2009, the petitioner was called by the Chennai City Control Room Police and made a detailed enquiry through the phone regarding her complaint given through SMS for which she had also made a detailed reply.
8. Despite the eve teasing activities of the said Balamurugan and Balakrishnan was brought the notice, of the petitioner that the police being the law enforcing authority had colluded with those persons and refrained from taking legitimate action. Under this circumstance, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 before this court after invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to direct the first respondent police to register a case based on her complaint dated 19.10.2009. After hearing both sides this court had passed an order on 29.10.2009 directing the respondent police to complete the enquiry within two weeks and to proceed in accordance with the law.
9. With the respondent has not complied with the direction of this court dated 29.10.2009, the petitioner had sent a representation to the first respondent on 04.11.2009 requesting him to comply with the order of this court. Since there was no response on the other end, she had sent a detailed petition to the second respondent on 10.11.2009 and this was ended in vain. Without any other option, the petitioner had sent a contempt notice to both the respondents on 24.11.2009.
10. Despite the complaint, lodged by the petitioner, discloses cognizable offences, the first respondent police had miserably failed to register a case based on the complaint of the petitioner for the reasons best known to him. The direction of this court by order dated 29.10.2009 and made in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 was also not complied with by the respondents.
11. At the time of passing of the order dated 29.10.2009 in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 the first respondent Mr.John Sundar had been holding the post of the Inspector of Police attached to Rajamangalam Police Station at Villivakkam, Chennai and the second respondent Mr.Rajendran IPS was functioning as The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai. When the order was passed by this court on dated 29.10.2009 they both were lawfully bound to implement the order, but they have wantonly and deliberately disobeyed the order of this court.
12. During the pendency of the contempt petition No.30 of 2010, the first respondent, on 12.03.2010 has filed his counter affidavit but the second respondent has not chosen to file his affidavit objecting the averment of the contempt petition.
13. In paragraph No.5 of his counter affidavit dated 12.03.2010, the first respondent Mr.John Sundar has stated as under;
"I respectfully submit that based upon the order of the Honourable High Court, Madras both parties have been called for enquiry and the statements have been recorded and the enquiry disclosed that the complaint itself is false one, since there is a civil dispute pending between them relating to the will which has been executed by Govindaraj and the matter is still pending before the Honourable High Court, Madras. On completion of the total enquiry, it reveals that the complaint itself is a false one and I informed the same to the parties concerned on 08.11.2009 itself."
14. Mr.T.Jaishankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that this court in its order dated 29.10.2009, and made in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009, has specifically directed to complete the enquiry on the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 19.10.2009 within a period of two weeks and proceed in accordance with the law. However, the respondents had miserably failed and neglected to comply with the direction of this court.
15. Countering his arguments, Mr.M.Babu Muthu Maran the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that in pursuant to the direction of this court, the first respondent had enquired into the matter and registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2011 under Section 294(b), 506(ii), 509 of IPC and under Section 4 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as against the accused persons and hence, it could not be stated that the order of this court was willfully neglected and disobeyed by the respondents.
16. Mr.T.Jaishankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also adverted to that the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents were absolutely false and in fact they had not completed the enquiry within the stipulated period of two weeks as directed by this court and therefore, this petitioner was constrained to file this Contempt Petition No.30 of 2010 for punishing the respondents in accordance with the proviso to Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act.
17. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner has also filed a sub application in Sub.Appl.No.189 of 2010 wherein he had contended that in the counter affidavit dated 12.03.2010 filed by the 1st respondent in the present petition in paragraph 5, he has stated that the parties were called for enquiry and their statements were recorded and it revealed that the complaint itself is a false one as there is a civil case pending between them relating to the will.
18. In this connection Mr.T.Jaishankar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the first respondent being a public servant is expected to furnish correct information to the court and that the first respondent had not even chosen to produce a copy of the statements alleged to have been recorded from the petitioner as well as from the accused persons who had committed the offence of eve-teasing. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this sub-application in the form of complaint requesting the court to make a preliminary enquiry for the offences under Sections 177, 181, 182, 189, 200, 201, 202, 203 and 209 of IPC alleged to have been committed by the first respondent in relation to the proceedings of contempt petition as contemplated under Sub-Clause (b) to Sub-Section (1) to Section 195 of Cr.P.C.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that this court might record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing, forward it to a Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction and also to take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate.
20. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that on receipt of the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 19.10.2009, the first respondent had assigned a CSR No.332 of 2009 on 22.10.2009 and during the pendency of that complaint, the petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 seeking a direction to the respondent to register a case. When that petition came up for hearing, it was represented on behalf of the respondents stating that a petition enquiry was pending in that matter and this court had therefore, given a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of two weeks and act in accordance with the law. The learned public prosecutor has also submitted that in pursuant to the direction of this court dated 29.10.2009 and made in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009, the first respondent had enquired and submitted a report that the complaint was closed on the ground of civil in nature and therefore, the petitioner had come forward with this petition viz., Cont.P.No.30 of 2010. When this petition came up of hearing on 19.01.2011, this court had specifically has directed the respondents to register an FIR and report to the court as the allegations seemed to be serious.
21. In this regard, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has canvassed that even prior to the passing of the order dated 10.01.2011, the first respondent was transferred from RajamangalamPolice Station to Otteri Police Station from 09.06.2010, and one Mr.Sibukumar was the successor in office of the first respondent. He has also added that Mr.Sibukumar had registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2011, and taken up the investigation and after completion of investigation he had laid a final report before the learned V Metropolitan Magistgrate, Egmore, Chennai on 03.08.2011 under Section 294(b), 506(ii), 509 of IPC and under Section 4 if Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, and the case had not been taken on file so far. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the successor in office Mr.Sibukumar, had registered the case within the stipulated period of two weeks as directed by this court in the order dated 19.01.2011 and after completion of the investigation the charge sheet was also filed before the competent court of law and therefore, there is no need to make a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., as requested by the petitioner.
22. This Court has carefully perused the averments of the contempt petition, the avernments of the sub-application as well as the averments of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. In fact, the second respondent, has not chosen to file his counter affidavit.
23. It is manifested from the records that the petitioner had filed her complaint on 19.10.2009 before the first respondent police. Subsequently, CSR.No.223 of 2009 was assigned to the complaint on 22.10.2009. It is obvious to note here that during the pendency of the complaint on the file of the first respondent, the petitioner had come forward with the petition in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 seeking a direction to register a case. When the petition came up for hearing, the learned public prosecutor had submitted that a petition enquiry was pending on that complaint and therefore, this court while disposing the petition in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009 had given a direction to the respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of two weeks and act in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petition enquiry was completed and the complaint was also closed as civil in nature as a testamentary original suit was pending before this court with regard to the will. Only under this circumstances, the petitioner has come forward with the present contempt petition under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents alleging that they have committed willful disobedience in complying with the direction of this court.
24. It is significant to note here that the contempt petition came up for hearing before this court on 19.01.2011. This court considering the seriousness of the allegations of the complaint, had directed the respondent police to register an FIR and report to the court. As rightly argued by the learned public prosecutor that on 09.06.2010, the first respondent police was transferred to Otteri Police Station from Rajamangalam Police Station and his successor in office one Sibukumar had assumed charge. As directed by this court Mr.Sibukumar, Inspector of Police had registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2011 on 09.02.2011 and he had also taken up the investigation and after the completion of the investigation he had filed a final report before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 03.08.2011 under Section 294(b), 506(ii), 509 of IPC and under Section 4 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.
25. It is obvious to note here that this contempt petition has not been filed based on the order dated 19.10.2011 and made in Cont.P.No.30 of 2010, directing the respondent police to register an FIR and report to court. While passing this order on 19.10.2011, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had sought two weeks time for reporting compliance. But this contempt petition has been filed only on the basis of the earlier order passed by this court on 29.10.2010 in Crl.O.P.No.23418 of 2009.
26. If at all the period of two weeks has to be computed it should be from 19.01.2011 as undertaken by the learned public prosecutor and this case was registered within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or from the date of passing of the order. Therefore, this court is of considered view that there is no delay in registering the case. Further this court is also of the considered view that the first respondent has not supplied any false information to this court. Therefore, the necessity of making a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., does not arise.
Keeping in view of these facts these petitions are liable to be dismissed.
14.06.2012
T.MATHIVANAN,J
prm
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
prm
To:
1.Mr.John Sundar
Inspector of Police,
Rajamangalam PS
Villivakkam,
Chennai.
2.Mr.Rajendran IPS
The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai 8.
3.The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court, Chennai
Cont.P.No.30 of 2010
And Sub. Appl.No.189 of 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment