Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 562 (MAD)

R. Venkatesan v. Commissioner of Police

2014-02-28

M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner has projected the Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent to take action on his Representation dated 17.12.2012 respectively in regard to an illegal harassment and interference made by the Second Respondent. 2. According to the Petitioner, he is a retired Village Administrative Officer who purchased the house property as per sale deed dated 04.11.2011 together with vacant land, in all, measuring an extent of 2409 Sq.ft from one Benjamin and 2 others who were NRIs for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.27,02,500/-(Twenty Seven Lakhs Two Thousand Five Hundred Only). 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that prior to the purchase of the above property, a sale agreement was entered into between one G.Prithiviraj, Third Respondent/power holder of vendor Benjamin on 21.05.2011 and an advance amount of Rs.10,10,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) was paid by him. It appears that the Third Respondent refused to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement and issue notice for cancellation of the agreement. 4. The Petitioner was perforced to file O.S.590 of 2001 on the file of the Learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore against the Third Respondent and the vendor of the said premises and sought for execution of sale deed. The said suit was decreed on 03.11.2011. 5. It comes to be known that the Petitioner prior to the passing of decree and when notice was ordered by the trial Court, the vendor came to know about the foul played by the power agent namely, the Third Respondent and he came in person and executed the registered sale deed on 04.11.2011. But to the shock of the Petitioner, even after the said sale, the Third Respondent who is a retired Assistant Commissioner of Police harassed him continuously and demanded more money. Since the Third Respondent is a retired police officer, he had influenced the Second Respondent and as such, the Petitioner is harassed in regard to the claim of more money and in this regard, he refused to heed to their illegal demand. The stand of the Petitioner is that the Second and Third Respondents threatened him with dire consequences etc. 6. The stand of the Petitioner is that the Second and Third Respondents threatened him with dire consequences etc. 6. Inasmuch as the Second and Third Respondents visited the house of the Petitioner during night hours and illegally threatened the Petitioner and his family members, he filed the suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.2692 of 2012 before the Learned Additional District Judge, Coimbatore against the Third Respondent. It transpires that summons from the said Court were served on the Third Respondent. 7. The Petitioner had filed various complaints against the Second and Third Respondents on the file of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission and others (including the First Respondent). That apart, he sent a registered complaint dated 25.12.2012 to the First Respondent. 8. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he had purchased the property in question on the decree passed by the Competent Civil Court and paid a valid sale consideration and sale deed was also registered by the concerned Sub Registrar. When that being the fact, Second Respondent is harassing him and his family members. Hence, he has projected the present Writ Petition before this Court. 9. It is to be pointed out that the Petitioner on earlier occasion filed O.S.No.590 of 2011 seeking the relief of Specific Performance against the concerned defendants and obtained decree in his favour on 03.11.2011. It is quite evident that the Petitioner got a sale deed in his favour dated 04.11.2011 duly registered on the file of concerned Sub Registrar. The Petitioner had also filed a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.2692 of 2012 on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge, Coimbatore against the Third Respondent concerned and the said suit is pending as on date. Only during the pendency of the second suit in O.S.No.2692 of 2012 on the file of the trial Court, the Petitioner has come out with a plea that Second Respondent/Inspector of Police (Law and Order) Podanur Police Station, Podanur, Coimbatore District is harassing him and his family members. Also the Petitioner in the present Writ affidavit had categorically averred that the Third Respondent is a retired Police Officer (Assistant Commissioner of Police). 10. Also the Petitioner in the present Writ affidavit had categorically averred that the Third Respondent is a retired Police Officer (Assistant Commissioner of Police). 10. Also that the Third Respondent (in the present Writ Petition) had filed CRP (NPD) No.4688 of 2011 before this Court under Section 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order and decree passed by the Learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore dated 03.11.2011 and obtained an order of interim stay from this Court on 02.12.2011 but it is admitted that on both sides that O.S.No.2692 of 2012 filed by the Writ Petitioner seeking the relief of bare injunction is pending on the file of the trial Court as on date. 11. It is to be borne in mind that only the substance of information relating to a cognizable offence is to be entered into a book to be kept at every police station in such form as the State Government may prescribe. This book is usually known as 'General Diary'. It is also called as 'Station House Register'. As a matter of fact, the Magistrate of the District is entitled to call for and inspect such Diary or a Station Diary. 12. It is to be noted that on receipt of an information of commission of a cognizable offence, there is no option under Criminal Procedure Code for a police officer but to register the same in the 'General Diary' and proceed with the investigation as per the decision of Joseph Thomas Vs. Sabu George reported in 1998 (2) (SN) at page 282 Ker (DB). Added further, in respect of a cognizable offence, the police may hold an investigation irrespective of any order of Court as opined by this Court. Indeed, the duty of police is to prevent and detect crime and bring the accused to justice. That apart, an officer in-charge of a police station must record First Information Report in accordance with Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code and an inordinate delay renders the prosecution case a suspicious one as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh Bhavan Patel Vs. State of Mahastrata [AIR 1979 SC at page 135]. In certain situations, an FIR may be relevant in terms of Section 11 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as per the decision of Prafulla Bora Vs. State of Assam [1988 (CRLJ) page 428 & 430 (Gau DB)]. 13. State of Mahastrata [AIR 1979 SC at page 135]. In certain situations, an FIR may be relevant in terms of Section 11 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as per the decision of Prafulla Bora Vs. State of Assam [1988 (CRLJ) page 428 & 430 (Gau DB)]. 13. Furthermore, in regard to an investigation into a cognizable case, the jurisdiction of the officer in-charge of the concerned police station is co-terminous with the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance. Also that in a cognizable offence, an aggrieved party is to be informed about the finality of investigation in the considered opinion of this Court. 14. At this stage, this Court worth recalls the decision of Indrajit Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal [1995 (CRLJ) at page 325 and at Special page 3252 (Cal), wherein it is held that 'investigation of a case is within the ambit of police'. Also in the decision of Shanti Devi Vs. The State [2003 CRLJ (NOC) at page 69], it is held that 'all investigation would not be taken up before registration of the case'. 15. On a careful consideration of the entire facts and attendant circumstance of the case and this Court on an overall assessment of the facts situation comes to an inevitable conclusion that there are several disputes pending for adjudication by the Competent Court between the parties and when the second suit filed for bare injunction in O.S.2926 of 2012 is very much pending as on today and also on the date of filing of the present Writ Petition then this Court is of the considered view that it is for the Petitioner to pursue/prosecute his all further remedy before the trial Court in the pending suit and also to take further course of action in regard to the interim stay granted by this Court in Civil Revision Petition and proceed further in the manner known to law without exhausting or availing the alternative remedy of prosecuting the cvil proceedings filed by the Petitioner and the same being pending, this Court opines that the Petitioner in a premature fashion has approached this Court and filed the present Writ of Mandamus which in the considered opinion of this Court is not maintainable. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails. 16. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails. 16. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, it is made clear by this Court that the dismissal of the Writ Petition will not preclude the Petitioner to approach the First Respondent/Commissioner of Police (being a higher up in the Police set up in the District) and to project necessary petition in respect of the present petition/complaint against the Second or Third Respondent and to seek further course of action in the subject matter in issue. As and when the Representation/Complaint is projected by the Petitioner (if situation so warrants ), in that event, the First Respondent is said to look into the same in a Fair, Objective and dispassionate manner by passing a reasoned speaking order mentioning the out come of action taken/proposed to be taken (in the subject matter in issue), uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court in this Writ Petition. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.