SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

அதிரடி order THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUPW.P.(MD)No.21080 & 21047 of 2022 andWMP.(MD).Nos.16874 and 17937 of 2022W.P.(MD)No.21080 of 2022G.Seenivasan : PetitionerVs.

by ·

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 23.11.2022
DELIVERED ON : 11.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.P.(MD)No.21080 & 21047 of 2022 and
WMP.(MD).Nos.16874 and 17937 of 2022
W.P.(MD)No.21080 of 2022
G.Seenivasan : Petitioner
Vs.

  1. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.
  2. The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
  3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office, Tenkasi.
  4. The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
  5. The Tahsildar, Sivagiri Taluk Office, Tenkasi District.
  6. The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Tenkasi District.
  7. C.Chozharajan
  8. S.Ammaiappan
  9. R.Murugan
  10. A.Petchiappan
  11. C.Kaliappan : Respondents
    (First Respondent is suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court, dated 11.08.2023 and the original Respondents are re-arranged accordingly)
    PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ of Mandamus or any other Order or direction in nature of Writ, to direct the Respondents 1 to 5 (now ranked as Respondents 2 to 6) to take appropriate action against the Respondents 6 to 10 (now ranked as Respondents 7 to 11) who were following the system of ex-communication against the Petitioner and his family members by considering the Petitioner’s representation dated 26.08.2022 within the time stipulated by this Court.
    W.P.(MD)No.21047 of 2022
    C.Mathivanan : Petitioner
    Vs.
  12. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai
  13. The Superintendent of Police,
    O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
  14. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Puliyankudi, Tenkasi District.
  15. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
    CBCID (South),
    Tirunelveli District.
  16. The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Tenkasi District.
  17. The District Collector, Tenkasi District.
    (R-5 suo motu impleaded vide Court Order
    dated 27.09.2022 by SSKJ) : Respondents
    (First Respondent is suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court, dated 11.08.2023 and the original Respondents are re-arranged accordingly)
    PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ of Mandamus or any other Order or direction in nature of Writ, to direct the Respondent 1 (now ranked as Respondent 2) to withdraw the case in Crime Nos.139 & 141/2022 on the file of the fourth Respondent (now ranked as fifth Respondent) dated 04.04.2022 and entrust the same to the third Respondent (now ranked as fourth Respondent) for an investigation of the case by the Competent Officer and file a final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Court.
    For Petitioner
    in both cases : Mr.T.Thirumurugan For Respondents
    in both cases : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
    Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 to R5

COMMON ORDER
W.P.No.21080/2022 has been filed to direct the Respondents 1 to 5
(now ranked as Respondents 2 to 6) to take appropriate action against the Respondents 6 to 10 (now ranked as Respondents 7 to 11) who were following the system of ex-communication against the Petitioner and his family members by considering the Petitioner’s representation dated 26.08.2022 within the time stipulated by this Court.

  1. W.P.No.21047/2022 has been filed to to direct the first Respondent
    (now ranked as second Respondent) to withdraw the case in Crime Nos.139
    & 141/2022 on the file of the fourth Respondent (now ranked as fifth
    Respondent), dated 04.04.2022 and entrust the same to the third Respondent (now ranked as fourth Respondent) for an investigation of the case by the Competent Officer and file a final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Court.
  2. The facts in W.P.(MD).No.21047 of 2022 are as follows:
    The Petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste Community. On 18.03.2022, he went along with his associates to the funeral ceremony of one Rajasingam’s father. At that time, the persons belonging to Nadar Uravinmurai had objected to the Petitioner attending the funeral ceremony and abused him in filthy language. The said persons compelled Rajasingam to remove the Petitioner and his associates and if not, they will not cooperate in his father’s last rites.
  3. On 19.03.2022 at about 7.00 a.m., the said persons called oneAnnasamy who was associated with the Petitioner on the last rite event and imposed a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and asked him to seek apology in front of the villagers by kneeling down/prostrating 20 times and then, the said fine amount was reduced to Rs.10,000/-.
  4. On 27.03.2022, the said persons called one Gnanasekar and asked him to do the same as was done by Annasamy. But Gnanasekar refused. Therefore, he was ex-communicated from the village. It is very pathetic that the person who is running a hotel has refused to provide tiffin to his eight month old child in view of his ex-communication.
  5. Based on a Complaint, an FIR in Cr.No.139 of 2022 was registered against one Ammaiappan and 9 others for the offences under Sections 147, 109, 294 (b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by the fourth Respondent (now ranked as fifth Respondent). As a counter complaint, a false case was registered against the Petitioner and his associates who were affected by excommunication in Crime No.141 of 2022.
  6. After registration of the said case in Crime No.139/2022, the saidAmmaiappan has filed a direction Petition before this Court in Crl.O.P. (MD).No.8059/2022 and on 28.04.2022, this Court had directed them to appear before the concerned Special Courts and file a Bail Petition. He also filed an objection Petition before the concerned trial Court and the bail Petition filed by A.6 was dismissed and he was remanded to judicial custody and Anticipatory Bail was granted to A-9 and A-8.
  7. Apart from the said A-6, A-8 and A-9, none of the Accused had filed Anticipatory Bail Petition nor had surrendered before the Court concerned till date. The fourth Respondent (now ranked as fifth Respondent) has also not secured them till date, since the main Accused is politically influential.
  8. The main Accused in Cr.No.139/2022 followed the system of excommunication in their village for the past seven years. Due to their continuous illegal activities, the persons who underwent sufferings by excommunication had lodged complaints before the Respondents 1 and 4. Till date, no action has been taken against him.
  9. The prime Accused who is politically influential had auctioned
    the Post of Chairman for a sum of Rs.66,00,000/- and the Post of ViceChairman for a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-. Due to the non-arrest of the Accused, he had involved in illegal activities like tampering the witnesses. Therefore, the Petitioner made a representation to the Respondents and prayed to transfer the case in Cr.No.139/2022 to some other agency. Hence, this Petition.
  10. The facts in W.P.(MD).No.21080 of 2022 are as follows:
    The Petitioner belongs to Hindu Nadar Community and he is associated with one political party and is working for the people who belong to economically weaker section for their socio, economic development. On 17.07.2015, they had conducted demonstration against the Rayagiri Town Panchayat and demanded water connection, reduction of water tax and other basic needs. In that meeting, the former Chairman, Vice-Chairman and sixth Respondent (now ranked as seventh Respondent) were abused and also threatened on the ground that the Petitioner and their associates are conducting demonstration against their representative of Town Panchayat. Therefore, the Petitioner lodged a Complaint against them. But the fifth Respondent (now ranked as sixth Respondent) registered a false case against the Petitioner and others in Cr.No.216/2015.
    Due to the said demonstration conducted against them, they had initiated ex-communication against the Petitioner and his family members.
  11. The Petitioner had given several representations to the Respondents 1 and 2 (now ranked as Respondents 2 and 3) to take necessary action against the ex-communication it went in vain. When the Petitioner participates in any event in the Village, the said Villagers compel the person who conducts the event to ask the Petitioner to seek apology in front of the villagers by kneeling down/prostrating and impose a fine of Rs.
    10,000/-. Therefore, FIR has been registered against the Respondents
    7,8,10 and 11 and others for the offence under Section 147, 109, 294(b),
    506(i) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r ) and 3 (1) (s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As a counter case, a false case has been registered against the Petitioner and his associates.
  12. On 26.08.2022, the Petitioner had given a representation to the Respondents 1 to 5 (now ranked as Respondents 2 to 6) and others to take necessary action against the Respondent 7 to 11 against the ex-
    communication. But they had not done so. Hence, this Petition.
  13. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner wasrecorded and this Court suo motu impleaded the District Collector, Tenkasi District, to conduct an enquiry and also the Superintendent of Police was directed to conduct an enquiry regarding outdated practice of
    excommunication in the village of Rayagiri which is found to be against the Constitutional provisions.
  14. After India became independent in the year 1947, the leaders of this Country formed Constituent Assembly and drafted the Constitution. The Constitution was accepted and the Country was made a Republic.
    Therefore, when the Country became Republic, the framers of the Constitution had promised on behalf of the people of this Country to administer Country as Republic based on the Constitution and the Constitutional values. Therefore, from the date the Constitution of India came into being, the old practice of treating fellow citizens as slaves and holding Khap Panchayat or Kangaroo Court had become outdated. To administer law, the Courts are formed and to enforce the law, Police Officers are appointed. It shows the hierarchy in the system based on the rule of law. The day-to-day administration is done through the Collector of the District and Superintendent of Police as head of the Police. When that being the case, a few individuals in the villages calling themselves as, “leaders” without being elected duly by the lawful methods and treating residents of the village as their slaves by removing them from village by oral orders and imposing fine, is found to be an outdated practice which was in vogue till India became independent and was made Republic by its leaders.
  15. Therefore, in the light of the Constitutional scheme of things, this Court had directed the District Collector, Tenkasi District and the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District to hold enquiry in the Rayagiri Village regarding this so-called panchayat leaders holding their own parallel system which is not in tune with the Constitutional scheme of things or to be considered under the rule of law, to take appropriate action and to file a report.
    17, On 12.10.2022, on the request of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the case was adjourned to 14.10.2022. On 14.10.2022, there was no response. At that time, a member of this Bar – Mr.Anto Prince (Enrl No.2694/2000) sought permission of this Court to file intervening Petition on behalf of the Respondents who were parties to this Petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner objected stating that he had sought a direction against the Police Officials to enquire and register a case by filing this Petition. When this Court heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and sought the response of the Police Officials and when this Court had suo motu impleaded the District Collector of Tenkasi District as a necessary party and having adjourned the case from 12.10.2022 to 14.10.2022, in spite of filing interim report as sought by this Court, the
    Respondents/Police Officials had instigated the parties against whom the
    Petitioner had made Complaint to engage a Counsel and intervene in this Petition, which cannot be accepted. The objection of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was recorded. The Petition filed by Mr.Anto Prince, Enrl. No.2694/2022 was kept in abeyance. Also, this Court had passed certain comments against the District Collector, Tenkasi District and the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District for not filing the status report or
    interim report. At that stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor/Mr.Senthil Kumar sought to file status report on the next hearing date and requested this Court to adjourn the case by 18.10.2022.
  16. On 18.10.2022, the comments against the District Collector, Tenkasi and the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District were expunged and the interim status report filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was accepted. To the filing of the interim report, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner objected as the interim report denied the existence of Khap Panchayat and the practice of ostracization and imposing fine on the residents of the Village. Also, the District Collector had, in the report, stated that he had authorised the Revenue Divisional Officer to hold enquiry in the Village and file report. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 07.11.2022.
  17. On 07.11.2022, when the case came up for hearing, similar Writ
    Petition in W.P.(MD).No.21080 of 2022 was filed by one G.Seenivasan,
    S/o. Ganesan of Rayagiri Village seeking a direction against the Respondents to hold enquiry in the Village regarding illegal activities of excommunication. In the said Writ Petition, the parties who organised the Khap panchayat/Katta Panchayat/Kangaroo Court were impleaded as
    Respondents 6 to 9 (now ranked as Respondents 7 to 10). The Respondents
    1 to 5 (now ranked as Respondents 2 to 6) were the District Collector,
    Revenue Divisional Officer, Superintendent of Police, Tahsildar and Inspector of Police. So, both the petitions were taken up for enquiry.
  18. On 07.11.2022, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorsubmitted that the investigation was carried out in Crime No.139 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 147, 109, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of SC/ST (POA) Act dated 04.04.2022, in which, the Petitioner – Chandru is the de facto Complainant. Further, it had been stated that the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District had nominated the
    Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil Sub Division as Investigation Officer. The Investigation Officer conducted investigation and examined witnesses. Investigation is proceeding fairly. The CD file is also furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
  19. Subsequently, it was found that since the said Investigation Officer, Mr.Sudheer, Deputy Superintendent of Police had been deputed to attend Military Introductory Training for Probationary Police Officer in the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Cat – I) for the year 2022-2023 from
    07.11.2022 to 19.11.2022, the investigation has been taken over by the
    Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Tenkasi District, namely, Mr.Subbaiah who is holding full additional charge of the Sankarankovil Sub Division.
  20. On a perusal of the investigation diary file, it is found that thestatements had been recorded from some of the Witnesses. Considering the averments made in the Petition and the investigation carried out by the Investigation Officer, the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are found justifiable. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai is impleaded as proper and necessary party regarding the allegations made in the petition and the interim status report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District through the Additional Public Prosecutor is found acceptable for the present.
  21. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai shall nominate an Officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police to supervise the investigation as it is a case of holding Kangaroo Court/Khap Panchayath/Katta Panchayat which was already taken note of by Principal Seat of this Court when His Lordship Justice Karpagavinayagam was presiding over the Bench and issued directions to the Officials of the State from the Chief Secretary to the last Officer, right from the Director General of Police to the Sub Inspector of Police, right from the District Judges to the Magistrates throughout the State of Tamil Nadu to take cognizance of organisation of Kangaroo Court/Khap Panchayath/Katta Panchayat in (i) K.Gopal Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Chief Secretary and Others reported in 2005 SCC Online Mad 466 and (ii) Rajendran and Others Vs. The State Rep. By the SubInspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Musiri Taluk, Trichy District reported in MANU/TN/0353/2004.
  22. Therefore, considering the repercussion of Katta Panchayat held by caste organization or ostracisation treating the fellow citizens as slaves, imposing fine and also restraining the shop keepers and fellow residents from moving with such individuals amounts to violation of Constitutional principles of equality before law, which, when ignored by the State Officials, particularly, by the Police and Revenue Officials, will have consequences endangering public peace. Therefore, the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai shall consider to withdraw the investigation in Cr. Nos.139 and 141 of 2022 of Sivagiri Police Station from the present Deputy Superintendent of Police and hand over the same to the Officer competent to hold impartial investigation. The same shall be supervised by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.
  23. The above instruction is as a sequel to the fact that Petitions have been filed before this Court invariably from all the Districts coming under the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. Similar instances are complained in Criminal Original Petitions seeking interference of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, as the head of Police Force in the Southern Districts, the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai is directed to nominate a person who is competent and impartial, to conduct such exercise invariably in all the Districts.
  24. This serious issue is similar to Naxalite problem, thereby holding parallel Government which is not all supported by any lawful means and which cannot be ignored by the State Officials in charge of law and Order, and thereby curtailing the right of individual citizens of this Country to use common Well and common pathway and to mingle with others. These are all restrictions which are contrary to Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression, freedom of movement and fundamental rights of the Citizens of this Country.
  25. In the light of the above, the District Legal Services Authority attached to Southern Districts shall hold awareness campaigns in the
    Southern Districts, namely, Kanniyakumari, Theni, Tirunelveli,
    Thoothukudi, Madurai, Dindigul, Ramanathapuram, Virudhunagar,
    Sivagangai, Pudukottai, Thanjavur, Tiruchirapalli, Karur and Tenkasi in the far flung villages.
  26. If this problem is not attended to, it will have serious consequences leading to communal and caste clashes resulting in loss of lives, loss of property causing economic loss to the State as well as the Country affecting the lives of the citizen and reflecting the Country in poor light before the World at large.
  27. In the light of the above discussion, the Inspector General of
    Police, South Zone is directed to nominate a person not below the rank of
    Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the allegation regarding Kangaroo Court/Khap Panchayat/Katta Panchayat which was already
    taken note of by the Principal Seat of this Court, as already stated supra in paragraph 23.
  28. The Deputy Superintendent of Police in the assessment of the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, who is an impartial Officer shall conduct a fair investigation. Since there are many Petitions filed invariably from all the Districts, the Inspector General of Police shall directly supervise the investigation in the District concerned. The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi shall take preventive measures regarding the same offence. The Petitioners are granted liberty to approach this Court for any further directions in this regard. If it is found that they had indulged in the offence attracting penal laws of this country cases shall be registered against them before the Court concerned as a person indulging in parallel administration without force of law which is illegal. (similar to naxalite activities)
    With the above direction, these Writ Petitions are disposed of.
    Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
    11.08.2023
    Index: Yes/No
    Internet: Yes/No
    Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order aav/dh
    To
  29. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.
  30. The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
  31. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office, Tenkasi.
  32. The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.
  33. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Puliyankudi, Tenkasi District.
  34. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID(South),
    Tirunelveli District.
  35. The Tahsildar, Sivagiri Taluk Office, Tenkasi District.
  36. The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, Tenkasi District.
  37. The Public Prosecutor,
    Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
    SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
    dh
    Order made in
    WP.(MD)Nos.21080 & 21047 of 2022
    11.08.2023

You may also like...