Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 435 (MAD)

N. Chellasamy v. District Collector

2013-01-21

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The prayer in this writ petition is seeking a mandamus, directing the respondents to initiate action against the policemen, who had confined and tortured the petitioner at Pudukkadai Police Station, Kanyakumari District, in between 05.06.2007 and 09.06.2007. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 05.06.2007 at about 12.30 p.m., the policemen attached with Pudukkadai Police Station, came to his house and took him to the police station under the guise of an enquiry in connection with a criminal case. It is stated by the petitioner that after reaching the police station, the policemen removed all his dresses and chained him. It is also stated that one police, by name Thanga Nadar removed his ring weighing 1/4 sovereign. They accused the petitioner that he was involved in a theft case and compelled him to accept the guilt. The petitioner pleaded ignorance. The Sub Inspector of Police had beaten the petitioner and also abused him with filthy language. They confined the petitioner for five days and tortured him in a cruel manner. 3. It is further stated by the petitioner that the petitioner's wife preferred a complaint before the first respondent on 06.06.2007 and requested him to rescue the petitioner from the illegal custody. She also preferred a complaint before the second respondent on 08.06.2007 and sent a telegram to the District and Sessions Judge, Nagercoil on the same day itself. Finally, the petitioner's wife preferred a complaint before Taluk Legal Services Committee, Kuzhithurai Taluk, Kuzhithurai, to enquire into the matter. One Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who visited the police station on 09.06.2007 and thereafter, he filed a report. Consequently, the policemen implicated the petitioner as an accused in a criminal case, in Crime No.115 of 2007 for the offences alleged to be committed under sections 457 and 380 IPC and remanded him to judicial custody. Thereafter, he got bail after 17 days of imprisonment. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 13.08.2007, and requested them to initiate action against the culprits who have illegally retained him and torturing him. As the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition is filed before this court. 4. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the petitioner was arrested on 09.06.2007 and as per his confession, the stolen property weighing 6 sovereign was recovered from his house. As the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition is filed before this court. 4. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the petitioner was arrested on 09.06.2007 and as per his confession, the stolen property weighing 6 sovereign was recovered from his house. At the time of visiting of the Advocate Commissioner, the petitioner was in police custody. It is also denied that the petitioner was arrested before five days. 5. Further, it is stated by the second respondent that the petitioner was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand to judicial custody on 10.06.2007. The petitioner has not stated anything before the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking for any medical treatment. The petitioner was in judicial custody for 17 days. During that period also, he has not stated to the jail authorities that he was tortured by the policemen. He had also not sought for any medical treatment. 6. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 7. The prayer sought in this writ petition is seeking for appropriate action against the policemen, who have confined and tortured the petitioner in Pudukattai Police Station between 5.06.2007 and 09.06.2007. On the other hand, it is denied by the second respondent that the petitioner was not detained between those days. On the other hand, he was arrested only on 09.06.2007 and was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 10.06.2007 for judicial remand. 8. It is also stated by the second respondent that the petitioner did not make any complaint before the Judicial Magistrate with regard to the so-called 'torture' or 'illegal confinement'. Therefore, from the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it can be seen that there were no complaints or allegations made by the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, before whom he was produced on 10.06.2007. Had there been any complaint of torture, certainly the Judicial Magistrate would have taken note of the same. In the absence of any such complaint at appropriate time, the petitioner cannot file the present writ petition before this court subsequently with the reliefs, as stated supra. 9. Considering all theses facts and circumstances and the specific averment made by the second respondent in the counter, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.