Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 469 (MAD)

G. Neela v. S. Manokaran

2014-02-25

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment 1. This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for punishing the respondents for their non-compliance with the order of this Court dated 29.04.2011, made in Crl.O.P.No.2230 of 2008. Originally, the contempt petition came to be filed only against the first respondent, the then Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram. Subsequently, by order of Court, the second respondent and the third respondent (by the designation of post alone) were added. 2. The first and the second respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. An affidavit on behalf of the third respondent has also been filed. 3. The petitioner herein moved a petition in Crl.O.P.No.2230 of 2008 on the file of this Court invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to the Superintendent of Police to appoint a competent officer to re-investigate the case in Crime No.329 of 2004 registered on the file of E-1, Mamallapuram Police Station, Kancheepuram District, which had been investigated upon by the then Inspector of Police of the said police station and to direct filing of a final report in the said case, after such reinvestigation, as early as possible. 4. The above said criminal case in Crime No.329 of 2004 was registered on the file of E-1, Mamallapuram Police Station, Kancheepuram District under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding the death of Selvam, son of the petitioner herein, under suspicious circumstances. The petitioner herein had alleged before the police authorities that she suspected her son's death could have been caused by one Arumugam. The petitioner herein had alleged before the police authorities that she suspected her son's death could have been caused by one Arumugam. In the above said criminal original petition, the petitioner contended that one Prema, daughter of the above said Arumugam was in love with Selvam and the love affair between them was strongly opposed by Arumugam and his family members; that the said Prema eloped with Selvam to Thittakudi in the year 2003; that at that point of time, the above said Arumugam and his family members, made false assurance to solemnize their marriage and took Prema along with them; that subsequently, instead of honouring his assurance, the said Arumugam chose to lodge a complaint on the file of E-1, Mamallapuram Police Station, Kancheepuram District against Selvam for alleged offences of kidnapping and rape; that the then Inspector of Police of the said police station, based on the complaint, arrested Selvam; that despite such developments, the love affair between Selvam and Prema grew stronger and thicker and that under the said circumstances, Selvam (son of the petitioner) was found dead under suspicious circumstances on 18.06.2004 with blood stains and blood injuries on the head. It was also contended by her in the Criminal Original Petition that the then Inspector of Police, E-1, Mamallapuram Police Station, without properly conducting investigation, informed the petitioner that the case was closed and that hence, she had no other alternative than to approach the High Court for necessary orders directing re-investigation of the case under the supervision of a competent police officer or by a specialised investigating agency such as CBCID. 5. This Court, after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and also the submissions made by the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents (police officers) in the criminal original petition, passed an order dated 29.04.2011 allowing the said criminal original petition and directing re-investigation of the case in Crime No.329 of 2004 on the file of E-1, Mamallapuram Police Station. This Court issued a further direction to the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram, to issue necessary orders naming a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in his unit for re-investigation of the case, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. This Court issued a further direction to the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram, to issue necessary orders naming a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in his unit for re-investigation of the case, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It was also directed by this Court that such an officer to be named by the Superintendent of Police should conduct and complete re-investigation and submit a final report as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months. 6. Pursuant to the above said order of this Court dated 29.04.2011, the then Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram issued a proceedings in C.No.G1/22422/2011 dated 14.06.2011 appointing the second respondent herein viz., Thiru K.Ramadoss, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram and directed him to re-investigate the case in accordance with the order of this Court. The petitioner, unaware of such an order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram, perhaps because of the failure by the second respondent to take steps to re-investigate the case, thought that the direction issued by this Court to the Superintendent of Police itself was not complied with. Accordingly, after waiting for about four years, the petitioner chose to file the present petition for contempt arraying the first respondent alone as contemnor. 7. During the pendency of the contempt petition, counter affidavit came to be filed and the Court was informed that the copy of the order of this Court dated 29.04.2011 was received in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram on 11.06.2011 and that within the time granted by this Court, necessary order appointing the second respondent herein as the investigating officer to re-investigate the case, was passed by the Superintendent of Police on 14.06.2011. Meanwhile, the second respondent retired from service on superannuation and his successor in office was issued a proceedings in C.No.G1/22422/2011 dated 14.11.2013, directing Mr. H. Ramesh Babu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram to continue the investigation and submit a final report at the earliest. 8. Meanwhile, the second respondent retired from service on superannuation and his successor in office was issued a proceedings in C.No.G1/22422/2011 dated 14.11.2013, directing Mr. H. Ramesh Babu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram to continue the investigation and submit a final report at the earliest. 8. It is reported by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents that Thiru H. Ramesh Babu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram took up the re-investigation, completed the same and submitted a final report on 20.01.2014 and that the same was taken on file as P.R.C.No.4 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram. Finding total inaction on the part of the second respondent, this Court wanted him to submit his specific explanation as to why he should not be punished for contempt as he has violated the order of this Court and kept the matter in cold storage for more than two years. On enquiry, it was informed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that no investigation was conducted by the second respondent after receipt of the proceedings of the Superintendent of police appointing him as the investigating officer. On the other hand, he would submit that since he had been transferred to Thiruvallur, he could not conduct the investigation of the case. The contention of his successor in office is that the re-investigation of the above said case had been entrusted to his predecessor in office; that on receipt of the official memorandum of the Superintendent of Police dated 14.11.2013 and on receipt of contempt notice, he made search of the files and found out that his predecessor in office, besides failing to take up the re-investigation of the case as directed, failed to bring it to his notice of the successor, when he got relieved from Kancheepuram and that as soon as he came to know the said facts, he addressed the Superintendent of Police for issuing a fresh order appointing the investigating officer, since by then the second respondent had retired from service and that after getting the order of superintendent of police, he completed the re-investigation and submitted the final report as indicated supra. 9. 9. From the above said facts it is obvious that though there are some lapses on the part of Superintendent of Police to monitor the investigation entrusted to the second respondent, the considered view of the Court is that the same will not amount to contempt. Similarly, the successor in office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram, who completed the investigation and submitted a final report viz., Mr. H. Rameshbabu also cannot be found to have committed any act of contempt. In view of the same, this Court comes to the conclusion that the first respondent and the present incumbent of the office of the Superintendent of Police viz., the third respondent are to be held not guilty of commission of any act of contempt. 10. So far as, the second respondent Mr. K. Ramadoss, retired Deputy Superintendent of Police is concerned, though an order appointing him as investigating officer to re-investigate the case came to be passed by the Superintendent of Police on 14.06.2011 itself and it was received and acknowledged by the second respondent on 24.06.2011 itself, till he was transferred to Thiruvallur on 02.07.2012, he did have more than a year to conduct re-investigation. But the second respondent preferred to do nothing. He had not even chosen to examine any witness and he simply kept the case diary file in a cold storage for more than one year. Even on his transfer to Thiruvallur, he did not inform his successor, so as to enable him to seek an modified order appointing his successor as investigating officer in his place. 11. Further, the general perception of the police officials that once they are transferred and relieved from a particular place or a particular post, they would be absolved from the botheration of pursuing the investigation of the cases entrusted to them (including the cases, wherein they have been specifically named and appointed as investigating officers). Such a perception is highly improbable. Till the order appointing such an officer is relieved of the case by the appointment of a new investigating officer, he/she shall have the power and shall be bound to continue the investigation of the case. Such a perception is highly improbable. Till the order appointing such an officer is relieved of the case by the appointment of a new investigating officer, he/she shall have the power and shall be bound to continue the investigation of the case. This will be made clear by referring to certain special provisions like Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995, wherein the Rule contemplates naming of a particular officer by name and not by the post which he holds, as the investigating officer to investigate the case. Such an appointment should be made after taking into consideration his personal qualities, including his ability to conduct investigation on proper lines and complete the same within the shortest possible time. Suppose, the officer demits his office in the department, the consideration may be different, because an officer, after his quitting police department, may not be asked to conduct further investigation or complete the same and file a charge sheet. On the other hand, mere transfer of the officer from one post to another post shall not be taken as a ruse for not proceeding with the investigation entrusted to him, especially when he has been named by a higher official, that too pursuant to a direction of this High Court as the investigating officer of the particular case. Such an officer should either continue the investigation or make the officer appointing him as the investigation officer to issue fresh proceeding appointing another person as investigation officer. Till then he cannot escape the responsibility of continuing and completing the investigation. The above said observations are made only in order to show that the erroneous perception of the police officers in this regard should be erased. 12. Coming to the facts of this case, the second respondent preferred not to do anything for more than one year from the date of his appointment as investigating officer to re-investigate the case. Therefore, though the failure to investigate the case after his shifting from Kancheepuram to Thiruvallur can be excused, his inaction for more than one year while he was functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram and his failure to inform his successor to get necessary orders from the Superintendent of Police is to be viewed as nothing but acts of contempt of this Court. Considering the said act, this Court is not inclined to accept the apology tendered by him in his affidavit dated 14.02.2014. 13. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the second respondent viz., Mr. K. Ramadoss formerly Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram, now retired from service on superannuation, is guilty of contempt of Court for which he is liable to be punished. 14. The views of the second respondent regarding the punishment to be imposed has also been ascertained and the same are taken into consideration by this Court. After such consideration, this Court feels that the punishment should not be lenient so as to deter like-minded officials. At the same time, this Court also takes into account the fact that the officer is no longer in service and he has already retired on superannuation. Hence, this Court does not deem it appropriate to impose any substantive punishment of imprisonment and on the other hand thinks that imposing a fine alone shall be sufficient. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court feels that a fine of Rs.1,000/- shall be imposed so as to deter like-minded persons from committing such acts of contempt. 15. In the result, the respondents 1 and 3 are found to be not guilty of any act of contempt. The second respondent, Mr. K. Ramdoss alone is held guilty of contempt and he is punished with an imposition of a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In case of failure to pay the said amount imposed as fine, the second respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The payment shall be reported in two weeks.