Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2440
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
M. Rajkumar
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu & Others
W.P.No.1199 of 2006 dated W.P.M.P.No.1341 of 2006
Decided On : 22-06-2010
For the Petitioner:V. Krishnamurthy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Murali, Government Advocate.
A journalist cannot be subjected to harassment or ill-treatment by the police for discharging professional duties.
Headnote:
Journalist - Abuse of Power by Police - Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 294(b), 441, 386, 468, 506(ii), 107, 384, 75 - The court discussed the validity of the history sheet opened against the petitioner and highlighted the provisions of Police Standing Order 749, the interpretation of the term 'addicted to crimes,' and the legal precedent from Vani v. Superintendent of Police (2008) 3 MLJ (Crl) 1525. The court emphasized that a journalist cannot be subjected to humiliation or ill-treatment by the police for discharging professional duties and quashed the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a journalist, reported an incident of sexual assault and molestation. Subsequently, he and another person were subjected to harassment, ill-treatment, and false charges by the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opening of a history sheet against the petitioner was unjustified and quashed the impugned order.
Issues: Validity of the history sheet opened against the petitioner, abuse of power by the police, and harassment of journalists.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a journalist cannot be subjected to humiliation or ill-treatment by the police for discharging professional duties and highlighted the provisions of Police Standing Order 749 and the interpretation of the term 'addicted to crimes.'
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed.
The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 15.7.2005 wherein the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vaniyambadi Sub-Division, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District directed the Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Town Circle to open a history sheet against the petitioner and one Shanmugam who are named as accused in Crime No. 659 of 2005, Vaniyambadi Police Station under Sections 294(b), 441, 386, 468 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and initiate action under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a journalist serving as a reporter of a magazine called ‘Udal Echerrikkai’ and on 24.6.2005, one Nabil alias Mohammed Nabil belonging to Vaniyambadi Kottai area was caught red-handed by the Teachers of T.V.K.V. School and the local public for sexually assaulting and molesting a girl child studying in the said School and he was produced before the Vaniyambadi Police Station and at that time, the petitioner was present. The petitioner reported the said incident to the Inspector of Police, who enquired the victim girl who identified the said Nabil as accused and explained the act committed by the said person. According to the petitioner, the Inspector of Police received a telephone call and requested the petitioner and the other person namely Shanmugam to wait outside the police station. The other person viz, Mr. Shanmugam, was the publisher of a newspaper ‘Kannottam’.
3. According to the petitioner, after some time, the Inspector of Police Came out and stated that the father of the victim girl viz., Balu had given a request in writing asking the Inspector of Police not, to register the case. The petitioner and the said Shanmugam gave complaint regarding the said incident and consequently, the Inspector of Police said that a case would be registered against the said Nabil and requested the Head Constable to draft a complaint. It is alleged in the affidavit that the said Shanmugam was prevented from taking any photographs of the said Nabil. However, he took photographs while he was coming out of police station. It is also averred in the affidavit that the Inspector of Police asked the petitioner and Shanmugam to publish only the news item as found in the FIR.
4. On 28.6.2005, the Inspector of Police summoned the petitioner and warned for pursuing the said case. According to the petitioner, he threatened the petitioner and the said Shanmugam about writing of complaint to the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Inspector General of Police regarding the alleged bribe taken by the Inspector of Police on the information that the petitioner has planned to print notices. The petitioner pleaded ignorance. However, he was threatened and the Inspector of Police obtained undertaking from the petitioner stating that he would not indulge in such activities. The incident happened on 24.6.2005 was published in the newspaper Kannottam in the first week of July 2005.
5. On 1.7.2005, at about 11.15 pm when the petitioner was returning to his house, the third respondent apprehended the petitioner and forcibly seized the petitioner’s two-wheeler, camera and cell phone. Similar treatment was given to Shanmugam and his belongings were also seized. The petitioner and the said Shanmugam were taken to Vaniyambadi Town Police Station where they were beaten and tortured apart from abusing them. The police obtained signatures in several blank papers and the said assault continued till 4.00am. the petitioner and the said Shanmugam were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi after registering a case in Crime No. 659 of 2005 for offence under sections 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a complaint given by one Nilofer Kabil.
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, on seeing the injuries, referred the petitioner and the said Shanmugam for medical treatment. Medical treatment having not given and due to humiliation and torture at the
