SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1935

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
J.Chenthil Rajan – Appellant
Versus
The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government – Respondent
W.P.(MD).Nos.29558, 29559 and 29565 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.25521, 25522 and 25523 of 2023
Decided on : 27-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.N.R.Ilango, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Anand
For the Respondents:Ms.Aasha, Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr.M.Maharaja, Mr.T.M.Arunan

Government Orders dropping criminal proceedings against police officials were quashed as arbitrary and premature, emphasizing the need for judicial oversight before further action.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Challenge to Government Orders dropping criminal proceedings against police officers and initiating disciplinary action - Petitioner aggrieved by the decision to drop action based on inadequate investigation - Court quashed the Government Orders for being arbitrary and premature, allowing the petitioner to file a protest petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. (Paras 21, 22, 23)

(B) Investigation - Adequacy of investigation - The court emphasized the necessity for thorough investigation, especially when allegations involve public servants, and noted the lack of proper inquiry into the demands made by police personnel. (Paras 12, 18)

ORDER :

Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.29558 of 2023 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O.(Ms) No.24 Home (Police.2) Department, dated 23.01.2023 and quash the same insofar as his decision in not to recommend for criminal proceedings in Crime No.07 of 2022 on the file of the 3rd respondent concerned and consequently, direct the 5th respondent to take up the investigation of the said case and to proceed further in accordance with law.

(Prayer amended vide Court order, dated 15.03.2024 in W.M.P.(MD).No. 5911 of 2024 in W.P.(MD).No.29558 of 2023)

Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.29559 of 2023 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O.(Ms) No.25 Home (Police.2) Department, dated 23.01.2023 and quash the same insofar as his decision in not to recommend for criminal proceedings in Crime No.07 of 2022 on the file of the 3rd respondent concerned and consequently, direct the 5th respondent to take up the investigation of the said case and to proceed further in accordance with law.

(Prayer amended vide Court order, dated 15.03.2024 in W.M.P.(MD).No. 5907 of 2024 in W.P.(MD).No.29559 of 2023)

Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.29565 of 2023 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O.(Ms) No.26 Home (Police.2) Department, dated 23.01.2023 and quash the same insofar as his decision in not to recommend for criminal proceedings in Crime No.07 of 2022 on the file of the 3rd respondent concerned and consequently, direct the 5th respondent to take up the investigation of the said case and to proceed further in accordance with law.

(Prayer amended vide Court order, dated 15.03.2024 in W.M.P.(MD).No. 5910 of 2024 in W.P.(MD).No.29565 of 2023)

These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the Government Orders in G.O.(Ms) Nos.24, 25 and 26 Home (Police.2) Department, dated 23.01.2023.

2. By G.O.(Ms). No.24 Home (Police.2) Department, dated 23.01.2023, the Government examined the report of the third respondent/Investigating Authority, accepted the recommendation of the said authority and ordered to drop further action which was made against two Police Officers namely, R.Suresh Kumar, former Deputy Superintendent of Police and Pattani, Inspector of Police. By G.O.(Ms). No.25 Home (Police.2) Department, dated 23.01.2023, disciplinary action was directed to be initiated against the said Pattani, Inspector of Police on the lines mentioned therein. Similarly, by G.O.(Ms).No.26 Home (Police.2) Department, dated 23.01.2023, disciplinary action was directed to be initiated against R.Suresh Kumar, former Deputy Superintendent of Police on the lines mentioned therein. The petitioner, J.Chenthil Rajan, the de facto complainant, on whose complaint the case was registered and investigated, has filed the above Writ Petitions challenging the same.

3. Heard Mr.N.R.Ilango, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.R.Anand, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Ms.Aasha, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent Nos.1 to 5; Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Counsel for the sixth respondent and Mr.M.T.Arunan, learned Counsel for the seventh respondent.

4. Mr.N.R.Ilango, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue relates to the dispute between the petitioner and his father namely, Jegatheesan on one side and his father's brother namely, Vaikundarajan, the sixth respondent, on the other side. While so, there have been several legal proceedings between both sides given the number of properties and businesses belonging to the family. There are partnership firms and other entities, regarding w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top