Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1246 (MAD)

N. Sridhar v. State of Tamil Nadu

2012-03-08

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the State of Tamil Nadu, to abide the judgment of the Madras High Court passed in W.P.No.18955 of 2005 & Crl.O.P.No.12170 of 2008 besides its own G.O.Ms.No.1580, with consequential prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to register an F.I.R., on the petitioner's complaint dated 11.6.2011 by the C.B. C.I.D. and to file a time bound report. 2. The prayer made in this writ petition on the face of it is misconceived. The judgment passed by this Court is law, which is binding on all concerned therefore, no writ in the nature of mandamus, can be issued to direct the respondent to abide the law laid down by this Court. This Court can only adjudicate the action taken by the respondents and to take a decision as to whether action is in accordance with law or not. 3. Even otherwise, the prayer itself shows that the Government has already implemented the decision of this Court by issuing G.O.Ms.No.1580. The other prayer of the petitioner is for registration of an F.I.R. on the complaint dated 11.6.2011 is also misconceived, as the F.I.R. can be registered by the police officer within whose jurisdiction an offence is committed. The State of Tamil Nadu through Home Secretary cannot register an F.I.R., as prayed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner also cannot have a choice, as to which investigation agency is to register an F.I.R., as the petitioner submits that the complaint is to be registered by CB CID with further direction to file a time bound report. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is pleaded that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed a judgment in W.P.No.18955 of 2005 banning "Katta Panchayat" in Tamil Nadu. The similar view was taken by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.12170 of 2008 which resulted in issuance of a G.O.Ms.No.1580 dated 24.11.2008. 6. Inspite of the judgment passed by this Court, "Katta Panchayat" continue to be in practice by none other than the police. Inspite of this vague allegation, no police official who is said to have held "Katta Panchayat" is impleaded as party. 7. The petitioner is working as Helper in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board since March 2009, and was married on 7.3.2007. Inspite of this vague allegation, no police official who is said to have held "Katta Panchayat" is impleaded as party. 7. The petitioner is working as Helper in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board since March 2009, and was married on 7.3.2007. The petitioner left his native place to go to Tiruppur. The petitioner therefore, lost contacts with his native place. It was in January 2009, the petitioner came to his native place for interview, and again in the month of March 2009 since then the petitioner is residing there. 8. It is submitted that at 11.00 a.m. on 10.5.2010, Mrs.Suguna, Sub Inspector of Police, Chitra and Pachiammal, Police Constables took the petitioner to police station and forced him to marry one Dhanalakshmi, on the allegation, that the petitioner was responsible for her 6 month-old pregnancy. It may be mentioned here that none of the police officials are impleaded as parties to this writ petition. 9. The petitioner was put up in lock-up and warned that he will be taken up on remand, unless he agreed to marry Dhanalakshmi. The petitioner to disprove the allegation of pregnancy, requested for DNA test, but they refused and handed over the petitioner to the relatives of Dhanalakshmi. None of the relatives are also party to this writ petition. The petitioner submits that he was forced to marry Dhanalakshmi. 10. The case of the petitioner is that F.I.R. was torn off later. However, the petitioner has not furnished F.I.R. number nor F.I.R. can be torned off from the register as pleaded. 11. It is the submission of the petitioner that Mrs.Suguna, S.I. of Police, thereafter tried to force the petitioner to cohabit with Dhanalakshmi, but he refused. Surprisingly on the very next day, Dhanalakshmi delivered a baby for which the petitioner was not responsible. 12. The petitioner's father's lawyer sent a legal notice to Mrs.Suguna, S.I. of Police on 13.8.2010. But there was no response and the petitioner also did not challenge the action because of the fear of losing job. 13. It may be noticed that the legal notice was sent almost after 5 months of alleged incident. The reason is that a criminal case vide Cr.No.8/11 AWPS, Kallakurichi was registered against the petitioner on 29.04.2011, therefore, an attempt was made by the petitioner to raise a defence in the criminal case. 14. 13. It may be noticed that the legal notice was sent almost after 5 months of alleged incident. The reason is that a criminal case vide Cr.No.8/11 AWPS, Kallakurichi was registered against the petitioner on 29.04.2011, therefore, an attempt was made by the petitioner to raise a defence in the criminal case. 14. The case of the petitioner is that he was called for "Katta Panchayat", but the petitioner declined and applied for anticipatory bail, and thereafter sent a complaint to initiate penal prosecution against Mrs.Dhanalakshmi. 15. The writ petition is totally misconceived, and is a clear case of misuse of process of the Court. The allegations made in the affidavit even if taken on face value, do not make out any case of "Katta Panchayat" which may be said to be violation of law laid down by this Court. 16. The judgment of this Court deals with illegal and extra-constitutional institution called "Katta Panchayats" which hold illegal Kangaroo Courts and issue unlawful decrees of ex-communication from the village and impose huge fines against persons who have displeased them in some way or the other. 17. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to declare such "Katta Panchayats" to be extra-Constitutional institution having no authority in law. 18. The pleadings in this writ petition did not show which institution acted as "Katta Panchayat. Every crime cannot be said to be an act of "Katta Panchayat" 19. This is a case where the petitioner entered into second marriage for which a case has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner in order to overreach this court, has come up with Cock and Bull story, by claiming the marriage with one Dhanalakshmi to be an act of "Katta Panchayat". 20. The Government order on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner only deals with the registration of an F.I.R. by the police officers where the complaint is received. 21. In the case in hand, the petitioner has not even filed a complaint against the concerned police officials nor impleaded them as party to this writ petition. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner on being questioned as to why the necessary parties have not been impleaded, contends that in this Court practice is that the parties against whom the prayer for registration of a criminal case is made, are not impleaded as parties. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner on being questioned as to why the necessary parties have not been impleaded, contends that in this Court practice is that the parties against whom the prayer for registration of a criminal case is made, are not impleaded as parties. In view of this practice, there was no necessity for impleading anybody as party. In absence of the necessary parties, this Court, cannot take notice of allegation made against certain persons. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this Court practice is not to implead parties cannot be accepted. This Court is to decide cases as per settled law. 23. As already observed above, the petitioner has not even approached the appropriate authority for registration of case, therefore, no question arises for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the complaint filed by the petitioner. 24. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this writ petition is totally misconceived and is an attempt to misuse of process of this Court. The writ is ordered to be dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only). The cost shall be payable to the State.