Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 313
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. HEMALATHA, J.
L.N. Nithyanantham – Appellant
Versus
The State, Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai & Others – Respondent
Crl. OP. (MD) No. 1776 of 2021
Decided On : 30-03-2021
For the Petitioner:P. Chandrasekaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, A. Robinson, Government Advocate, R3, K. Balasundaram, Advocate.
POINT OF LAW: CIVIL DISPUTE – SUMMONING BY POLICE - Function of resolving civil disputes is entrusted to the Judiciary and the Police Officers lack jurisdiction in civil cases. No person can be forcibly summoned to a police station except in accordance with law, including the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120(B), 465, 468, 471 and 109, 409 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Harassment – Forceful Execution of Pre Drafted Compromise Deed – Petitioner's father borrowed money from third respondent to meet his family and business expenses – He died of cancer in year 2016. –Petitioner also borrowed money from third respondent to meet his business and family expenses. – Third respondent lodged a false complaint with Inspector of Police, stating that petitioner received a sum of amount from third respondent promising latter that he would secure a job for his daughter-in-law. – Based on this complaint, second respondent called petitioner to her office for an enquiry and harassed him. – He was also threatened by second respondent with dire consequences and entire episode was video graphed on latter's (second respondent) instructions. – Petitioner was also forced to sign a compromise deed, which was pre-drafted to suit convenience of Dr.S.Ramadoss. – Two witnesses signed same at District Crime Branch Office – Police had assumed jurisdiction over a civil dispute and also forced petitioner to sign a pre-drafted compromise deed. – Representation submitted by petitioner to first respondent, Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch in Ref. did not evoke any response. – Due to pressure exerted by third respondent, petitioner sent a Demand Draft for Rs.8 lacs – Second respondent once again called petitioner from her mobile phone number and threatened petitioner to settle amount due and payable to third respondent. – He has therefore, filed present petition seeking for a direction to second respondent not to harass petitioner –
Finding of the Court:
Contradictions in status report of second respondent are glaring. – It is crystal clear that third respondent wielded his influence to involve police officials in a civil dispute with petitioner and in turn police officials used intimidatory tactics which is not acceptable in any manner. – It is also clear that petitioner had initially succumbed to pressure tactics by signing a compromise deed, contents of which were not agreed by him and also was made to issue a cheque of Rs.8 lacs in order to buy a temporary peace. – It is shameful that law enforcers became law unto themselves crossing their boundaries knowing fully well that they had no business to intervene. – Court views acts of first and second respondents with utmost disfavour and directs Director General of Police to initiate disciplinary action against concerned Inspector of Police to ensure that it acts as a deterrent for any police official who breaks law – Compromise deed is quashed –
Result: Criminal Original Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT :-
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the second respondent police and their subordinates not to harass the petitioner for the purpose of enforcing the pre-drafted compromise deed dated 02.06.2020.)
1. The case of the petitioner in nutshell.
The petitioner's father borrowed money from the third respondent Dr.S.Ramadoss during 2014 to meet his family and business expenses. Subsequently, he died of cancer in the year 2016. The petitioner also borrowed money from the third respondent to meet his business and family expenses. Whileso, the third respondent lodged a false complaint with the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Pudukottai stating that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from the third respondent promising the latter that he would secure a job for his daughter-in-law. Based on this complaint, the second respondent called the petitioner to her office on 02.06.2020 for an enquiry and harassed him. He was also threatened by the second respondent with dire consequences and the entire episode was video graphed on the latter's (second respondent) instructions. The petitioner was also forced to sign a compromise deed on 02.06.2020, which was pre-drafted to suit the convenience of Dr.S.Ramadoss. Two witnesses by names D.Radhakrishnan and S.P.Karuppaiah signed the same at District Crime Branch Office, Pudukottai. According to the petitioner, the police had assumed jurisdiction over a civil dispute and also forced the petitioner to sign a pre-drafted compromise deed. The representation submitted by the petitioner to the first respondent, the Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch in Ref.No.1591/8/7/2020 did not evoke any response. Due to the pressure exerted by the third respondent, the petitioner sent a Demand Draft for Rs.8 lacs on 13.08.2020. Subsequently, the second respondent once again called the petitioner from her mobile phone number 9345215537 at 10.53 AM and threatened the petitioner to settle the amount due and payable to the third respondent. He has therefore, filed the present petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent not to harass the petitioner.
2. The second respondent filed a status report with the following contentions.
(i) The third respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner with the first respondent, the Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch stating that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.1,52,00,000/- promising him that he (petitioner) would secure a Government job for his daughter-in-law. However, he did not secure his daughter-in-law any Government job and also did not return the money. The said complaint was forwarded to the second respondent vide proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.260/SP/PDK/GDP/2020 dated 01.06.2020.
(ii) The second respondent took appropriate action keeping in mind the guidelines issued in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and conducted an enquiry on 02.06.2020.
(iii) However since both the parties informed the second respondent that a compromise deed was executed in the presence of VIPs and Panchayatdhars, the complaint was closed on the same day, ie., 02.06.2020.
(iv) The second respondent never threatened the petitioner to sign a compromise deed dated 02.06.2020 at the office of the District Crime Branch, Pudukottai.
(v) The subsequent representation of the petitioner to the first respondent was closed on 05.08.2020 since the petitioner introduced some new facts with respect to the petition which was disposed of on 01.06.2020.
(vi) The Inspector of Police, Tmt.Anitha Arockiya Mary never insisted the petitioner to settle the amount due to the third respondent since even as per the averment of the petitioner, he paid a sum of Rs.8 lacs only on 13.08.2020.
(vii) The third respondent also requested the second respondent to close his petition on 26.02.2021 and accordingly the same was closed.
(viii) In o
