The person directly involved in a case should approach the relevant authority for the preservation of evidence, and the authority should consider the request on its own merit.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction in the nature of Writ, directing the respondent No.1 to preserve the CCTV footages of the 2nd respondent's police station from the date of 04/09/2023 at 11.30 pm to 06/09/2023 at 11.30 pm and the respondent No.3's Police Station from the date of 05/09/2023 at 06.00 am to 07/09/2023 at 06.00 pm in connection with Crime No.843 of 2023 on the file of the respondent No.3 by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 15/09/2023 and pass any further order or orders.)

1. This writ petition is filed seeking for direction to the 1st respondent to preserve the CCTV footages of the 2nd respondent police station from the date of 04/09/2023 at 11.30 pm to 06/09/2023 at 11.30 pm and the 3rd respondent Police Station from the date of 05/09/2023 at 06.00 am to 07/09/2023 at 06.00 pm in connection with Crime No.843 of 2023 on the file of the 3rd respondent, by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 15/09/2023.

2. The facts in brief:-

The son of the petitioner by name Syed Ismail was working in Chennai. He came down to Madurai for attending his friend's wedding on 03/09/2023. When he was sleeping in the house on 04/09/2023 a special team led by the Sub Inspector of Police and other team of police officials entered into the house and dragged his son and arrested him along with Shiekh Mohammad, Sheikh Abdullah, vijay, Mohammad Ismail and Forz were arrested. They were taken by the special team. The petitioner went to Thirunagar Police station on 05/09/2023. But she was informed that no other information is available. So she sent a detailed representation on 05/09/2023 to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City stating that serious injuries were inflicted upon her son by the special police team and his leg was also broken. He was admitted in the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital for treatment. At that time, she was informed that he was kept in the house of the old Assistant Commissioner's Office Maudrai, at Nagaikadai Bazaar Street, wherein he was assaulted by the police team. They also broke his legs.

3. The entire events are captured by the CCTV put up in the old Assistant Commissioner's Office at Nagakkadai Bazaar Street, Later they were taken to the Karimedi Police station and a false complaint has been registered in Crime No.843 of 2023 for the offence under section 392 r/w 397, 506(i) of IPC and Section 25(1-a) of the Arms Act. To bring home the truth, a representation was made by the petitioner to preserve the CCTV in the old Assistant Commissioner's Police Station from 05/09/2023 to 07/09/2023. When that was not considered, this writ petition is filed seeking the relief as stated above.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The son of the petitioner alleged to have involved in Crime No.843 of 2023. FIR was registered on 05/09/2023 at about 09.30 hours.

6. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that actually his son was taken illegally by the special team on 04/09/2023 itself and detained in the old Assistant Commissioner's office, where he was assaulted brutally and his leg was also broken, whereas the case in Crime No.843 of 2023 was registered on 05/09/2023 as if robbery said to have committed by the petitioner's son along with his friends on 05/092023 at about 08.20 pm.

7. No doubt that it is a matter for thorough investigation by the Investigating Officer. But for preserving the CCTV in the old Assistant Commissioner's office between 04/09/2023 and 08/09/2023 only the son of the petitioner can make a request. Why the son of the petitioner has not made any request is not properly explained by the petitioner.

8. So I am of the considered view that only the son of the petitioner has to approach the first respondent along with the request for preserving CCT footage and on such request is being made, the first respondent shall consider the same on its own merit and dispose of wi