P. NATARAJAN v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER — 1990 DIGILAW 150 (MAD)

Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) THESE petitions have been filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , Cr1. M. P. No. 226 of 1990 for the issue of directions to the respondent therein, who is the Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Chidambaram, to register the F. I. R. on the complaint given by the petitioner therein on 4. 1. 1990 and investigate the matter and dispose it of in accordance with law and Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990 for a direction to the first respondent therein who is the Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Chidambaram, to receive the complaint of the petitioner therein dated 5. 1. 1990, register it in accordance with law since a cognizable offence was disclosed, investigate the matter and dispose of the complaint in accordance with law. ( 2 ) A few facts are necessary for the disposal of these petitions. The petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990 claims to be the proprietor of J. P. Jewellery at Chidambaram. On the midnight of 3/4-1-1990 at about 12. 30 a. m. four persons are alleged to have entered into his house posing themselves as Police Officers. The petitioner was then fast asleep. One Natarajan, the petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 226 of 1990, a tenant occupying the first-floor portion of the same premises, asked those persons about their identity. Those men, who were armed with sticks and lathis, threatened the tenant. The petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990, who woke up, meanwhile, questioned them about their identity, which only resulted in threats and nothing more. When the doors were opened, according to the petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990, the four intruders pounced upon Natarajan, the petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 226 of 1990, beat him severely, apart from using filthy and vulgar languages against the women folk. The petitioner in Cr. M. P. 613 of 1990, who pleaded on behalf of Natarajan, was also attacked. The intruders wanted some jewels to be given to them on the guise that they were stolen property. The petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990 was dragged to the van, which was parked nearby. It is also stated in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990, that the neighbours, Palani and Krishnan, were also assaulted by the intruders. The petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990 was dragged to the van, which was parked nearby. It is also stated in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990, that the neighbours, Palani and Krishnan, were also assaulted by the intruders. The petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990 was taken on the morning of 4. 1. 1990 to B-1 Police Station at Madurai and he was not make aware as the offence committed by him and why he was taken into custody. He alleges that he was beaten up severely in the lock-up. Within the statutory period, he was not produced before any Magistrate at Madurai. The petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990, on enquiry, found that one of the intruders was Mr, Dixon, the Sub Inspector of Police, B-2 Police Station at Madurai, and he was unable to ascertain the names of the other persons, who had accompanied Mr. Dixon, but he is certain that he can identified them. He was freed on the midnight of 4. 1. 1990. While in custody, according to the petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990, he was forced to sing in four plain papers. He arrived at Chidambaram on 5. 1. 1990 and learnt that his wife Mrs. Padma had sent telegrams regarding all that had happened on the midnight of 3. 1. 1990 inclusive of the abduction and illegal detention of the petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990 to the higher officials in the Police Department as well as the Chief i Minister of Tamil Nadu. She also appears to have given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Chidambaram, as well as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chidambaram, through Chidambaram Jewellery Association. It is stated in the affidavit of the petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990 that both the officials refused to receive the corn. plaint. It is also stated in the petition in Cr1. M. P, No. 613 of1990 that the Jewellers Association had also complained to the police and they refused to take note of it. After an emergency meeting convened on 4. 1. 1990, the Jewellers Association passed a resolution condemning the police action, and observed a total hartal on 4. 1. 1990 of all the jewellery shops at Ch ida mba ram. ( 3 ) THE petitioner in Cr1. After an emergency meeting convened on 4. 1. 1990, the Jewellers Association passed a resolution condemning the police action, and observed a total hartal on 4. 1. 1990 of all the jewellery shops at Ch ida mba ram. ( 3 ) THE petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990, after returning to Chidambaram, appears to have lodged a complaint against Mr. Dixon and four others, who had abducted and wrongfully restrained him on the night of 3/4-1-1990. Allegations were also made in the complaint regarding the assault by those persons on him and his having been subjected to illegal custody. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chidambaram, refused (0 receive the complaint. The petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990 thereafter met the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Chidambaram and presented his complaint. It was also refused by the higher Police Officer. It is under those circumstances that the petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990 seeks directions, as aforementioned. ( 4 ) THE tenant in the premises of the petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990, viz. , P. Natarajan has filed Cr1. M. P. No. 226 of 1990, On 8. 1. 1990, while admitting Cr1. M. P. No. 226 of 1990, I directed private notice also the respondent therein. Accordingly, the petitioners counsel sent private notice to the Sub Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Chidambararn, by registered post acknowledgment due, fixing the date of hearing as 17. 1. 1990. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Town Police Station, had refused it on 10. 1. 1990 and the cover has been returned with an endorsement to that effect to the counsel for the petitioner in Cr1. M. P. No. 226 of 1990. ( 5 ) WHEN Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990 came up for hearing on 17. 1. 1990, since it was connected with Cr1. M. P. No. 226 of 1990, I directed the petitioners counsel to serve notice on the Public Prosecutor and also directed the learned Public Prosecutor to get instructions in respect of both these petitions and adjourned the cases to 25. 1. 1990, The petitioners counsel was not directed to send private notice to the respondents in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990 since the first respondent therein had already refused the receipt of private notice in Cr1. 1. 1990, The petitioners counsel was not directed to send private notice to the respondents in Cr1. M. P. No. 613 of 1990 since the first respondent therein had already refused the receipt of private notice in Cr1. M. P. 226 of 1990 and the second respondent, the District Superintendent of Police could be contacted through the Public Prosecutor. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in spite of his communication to the Superintendent of Police, South Arcot at Cuddalore, in respect of Cr1. M. P. No. 3-26 and 613 of 1990, he had not been instructed. In the communication sent to the Superintendent of Police, South Arcot at Cuddalore, the learned Public Prosecutor has stated as follows:the above petition to direct the Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Chidambararn to receive the petitioners complaint dated 5. 1. 1990, register the case and investigate the matter, came up for hearing in the High Court today (25. 1. 1990) and adjourned to 2. 2. 1990. The High Court wants the presence of the Sup Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Chidambaram, who refused to receive the notice sent to him by the petitioner through registered post. The learned Public Prosecutor wanted the concerned Police Officer to meet him on 2. 2. 1990 to give instructions. It is unfortunate that in spite of the above said message, the concerned Police Officer had not only been not diligent, but had also acted with dire neglect in not having chosen to instruct the Public Prosecutor. This unfortunate attitude, cannot but be condemned. ( 6 ) THIS Court has held in several cases, that if an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is given to an officer in-charge of a Police Station, such information shall have to be reduced into writing and if such information were to be given in writing and signed by the person giving it, substance thereof should be entered in a book kept by such officer in such form as prescribed by the State Government. The Officer in-charge of the Police Station is also bound to give a copy of the information forthwith, free of costs, to the informant. The Officer in-charge of the Police Station is also bound to give a copy of the information forthwith, free of costs, to the informant. In the event of the Officer in-charge of the Police Station refusing to receive, or record the information,-the Superintendent of Police concerned, to whom such refusal is informed, in writing and by post, should act in terms of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event of his being satisfied that the information placed before him disclosed commission of a cognizable offence. It is unfortunate that both the Police Officer, the Sub Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Chidambaram, and the Deputy. Superintendent of Police, Chidambaram, have not acted in terms of Section 154, Cr. P. C. Not only they have not acted in accordance with law, but they have failed to instruct the Public Prosecutor of this Court. The petitioners in these petitions are directed to send a copy of their complaints dated 4. 1. 1990 and 5. 1. 1990, which prima facie appear to disclose commission of cognizable offences, to the Sub Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Chidambaram, as well as the Deputy Superintendent of Police Chidambaram, who, on receipt of those complaints, shall register them in accordance with law as contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and dispose them of forthwith as ordained by the order. Petition allowed.