W.P. No. 14781 of 2004. Case: Alarmelu Mangai Vs The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Department and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 14781 of 2004 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: V. Vaithiyalingam, Adv. for M. Gnanalingam, Adv. and For Respondents: R. Neelakandan, GA, Gopi Krishnan, Adv. and For Amicus Curiae: V. Lakshmi Narayanan, Adv. |
| Judges | K. Chandru, J. |
| Issue | Central Reserve Police Force Act - Sections 10 and 11; Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Section 8 and 8(2); Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 - Section 15(1) and 15(6); Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 - Sections 47, 93 to 100, 102, 160 and 160(1); Indian Penal Code - Sections 182... |
| Judgement Date | April 27, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
K. Chandru, J.
1. Heard the arguments of Mr. V. Vaithiyalingam, learned Counsel for Mr. M. Gnanalingam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R. Neelakandan, learned Government Advocate for first respondent, Mr. Gopi Krishnan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, Amicus curiae counsel for the court.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs for the wrongs committed by the respondents. Pending the writ petition, she has also sought for restraining the third respondent and his men from forcibly evicting her from quarters No. 1124, Special E Block, Type 1, GC, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai. The writ petition was admitted on 26.5.2004. In the application regarding quarters, an interim injunction was granted. Subsequently, by an order, dated 11.3.2005, the injunction application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi for the quarters as it was allotted only to her husband. On notice from this Court, on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit, dated Nil (September, 2004) was filed.
3. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner is a Post Graduate in Mathematics. She is married to N. Govindasamy, who is a CRPF Constable posted at Tripura. They had three children, i.e. Lakshmi, who was nine years old, Karthik aged 6 years and the third child is Kishore, who was 4 years old at that time. They are studying at the Kendriya Vidyalaya School, CRPF, Avadi. She was staying alone with her three children in the quarters No. 1124, Type 1, Special E Block, GC, CRPF, Avadi for more than three years. Since her husband was posted to the North Eastern sector, she tried her best to bring back her husband to a posting in Tamil Nadu. But that did not succeed. She was taking tuition to her children as well as the children of neighbourhood. She knew one Bagawan, who is a relative of her husband and was serving in the CRPF.
4. The said Bagawan invited her to participate in the birthday celebration of his youngest daughter by name Jugee on 23.1.2004. She had also participated in the said function along with her three children. They were all in a jubilant mood and were having dinner. Half way through the function, there was a knock on the door of Bagawan's quarters. A team of the local police personnel led by the 6th respondent (Inspector of Police) and some CRPF personnel led by the 5th respondent (S.K. Dey, Subethar Major) entered that house. On seeing the petitioner, the sixth respondent abused and charged her as if she was having illicit intimacy with Bagawan. When Bagawan requested them to behave decently, the seventh respondent, an Head Constable attached to Tank Factory Police Station, pushed him aside using filthy words and the 6th respondent assaulted him. The petitioner was forced to get into the jeep along with her children. When she resisted from being taken forcibly, the 6th respondent outraged her modesty and dragging her to the Jeep by holding on to her lock.
5. Bagawan along with his three female children and the petitioner along with her children were taken to F2 Tank Factory Police Station at midnight in the guise of conducting an enquiry. All were kept in the police station upto 2.00 a.m on 24.1.2004. Thereafter, they were set free without conducting an enquiry. It was later the petitioner came to know that the raid was conducted only on the instruction of third respondent, i.e. Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police., GC, CRPF, Avadi. The said incident was published in all the leading daily newspapers and weeklies including the New Indian express, Daily Thanthi, Junior Vikatan, Malai Murasu and India Today. The incident brought disrepute to her character and her Right to Privacy and liberty were infringed because of the callous and rude attitude of the respondents 3 to 7. Ever since the incident, she was made to undergo untold humiliation and to face disgrace in the society. She was unable to face her neighbours in general and her relatives in particular. The mental agony, insults and disgrace can never be compensated. After this incident, her husband also abandoned her. The petitioner at one point of time decided to end her life, but considering the future of her three minor children, changed her mind to face the realities of life. Therefore, she has come forward to file the present writ petition.
6. Though the respondents were served, only respondents 2,3,5 and 7 have filed a common counter affidavit. The other respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. The counter affidavit was sworn to by one George C. Francis, who was the Additional DIGP, GC CRPF, Avadi. According to the third respondent, the petitioner's husband was allotted quarters who was at the relevant time was serving the 42nd Batallion at Tripura. They received a written complaint from one Constable Murugan of the 142nd Battalion on 23.1.2004. It also contained signature of 7 women residing in the campus, complaining that the petitioner was visiting quarters No. 1261 occupied by Bagawan, who was a widower. She was found staying at odd hours in the night. On receipt of the said complaint, the third respondent being the Estate Officer-cum-Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ordered the Deputy Commandant (Administration) to carryout a surprise check in the quarters in which Bagawan was staying with his children in order to decide as to whether cognizance was to be taken under Section 10(n) of the CRPF Act. The Deputy Commandant (Administration) in turn informed Mr. Thangadurai, Inspector of F2 Tank Factory Police Station (sixth respondent) having local jurisdiction to accompany them during the surprise check.
7. Thereafter, the Deputy Commandant (Administration), Subedar major, Battalion Havildar Major, Company Havildar Major, one Head Constble (Mahila) of CRPF and the sixth respondent (Thangadurai) and one Constable (Mahila) of local police station carried out a surprise check in quarters No. 1261 at 11.05 p.m. On knocking the door, Constable Bagawan opened the door. He was asked about the presence of the petitioner. Constable Bagawan stated that no woman was present in his quarters. The Deputy Commandant (Administration) and Inspector Thangadurai ordered Mahila Head Constable Alagammal of GC, CRPF and the mahila Constable of local police station to go inside the flat and check up the rooms. They found the petitioner hiding in the bedroom and she was brought outside. Bagawan informed the search party that she came to take tuition for his children. Both Bagawan and the petitioner entered into a wordy altercation with Inspector Thangadurai. The sixth respondent felt that they should be further questioned. Hence Bagawan was taken to F2 Tank Factory Police station and the petitioner was taken to the All Women Police station along with Head Constable Mahila Alagammal of CRPF and a Constable Mahila of local police. After about 30 minutes questioning, the State police felt that the relationship between both the parties involved is by mutual consent and it is a trivial matter from the legal point of view. Hence no case was registered against them and they were allowed to come back to the camp in the same vehicle.
8. It is claimed that during surprise check, there was no abuse or harassment either by the State police or by the CRPF to the petitioner. The raid was made on the basis of a complaint. Since the matter was of a trivial nature, the third respondent decided that the prosecution under Section 11(n) of CRPF Act was not called for and no cognizance was taken. A preliminary enquiry was conducted into the habit of the petitioner. It was found that she was regularly visiting Bagawan at odd hours and was indulging in activities detrimental to the good order and discipline in the residential quarters of the CRPF. Initially when she was questioned, she stated that she came to the quarters for giving tuition. In her representation and in the writ petition, she claimed that she went for the birthday celebration of Bagawan's daughter. Therefore, her statement was false. It was also claimed that since there was a complaint from the residents about the inappropriate relationship of the petitioner with the Constable Bagawan, who is a widower, it had become necessary to verify the veracity of the complaint. Hence a surprise check was ordered.
9. It was also claimed that the petitioner's residence was found locked. Only thereafter, Bagawan's quarters was checked, during which time the petitioner was found hiding in his bedroom. It was also claimed that the news item published in the magazines and news papers had emanated due to the petitioner's statement and not by the CRPF. It was further claimed that Govindasamy posted at Tripura came to Avadi on leave with effect from 7.4.2004 to 5.6.2004 and their marital bond was not snapped. The said Govindasamy has been reposted to GC Avadi and he is residing in the same quarters. They are living together in the quarters with effect from 13.8.2004. It was further claimed that the petitioner's indulging inappropriate relationship in the CRPF quarters with scant respect for well established social and moral conduct required in a Government residential colony was violative of provisions of Section 8(c) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. It was also claimed that there was no trace of any birthday celebration found on 23.1.2004. Since there was a statutory duty to keep discipline inside the quarters and in order to see that there is no illegal acts or wrong is done, the inspection...
To continue reading
Request your trial