O R D E R

The writ on hand has been instituted to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action on the complaint submitted by the petitioner both criminal and departmental disciplinary action against the respondents 3 and 4 and further direct the respondents to ensure that the 10-1/2 sovereigns of gold jewels taken from the petitioner's wife be returned to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner states that on 26.01.2016, his son had gone to his wife's sister Smt.Rose Banu's house at Adambakkam. The son of the petitioner had arrived at Chennai City in connection with a correction work relating to his Birth Certificate for the purpose of securing passport. The son of the petitioner returned back to his house and thereafter the husband of Smt.Rose Banu Mr.Mohamed Arif had given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Adambakkam Police Station, alleging that the jewels kept in the bureau in his house were stolen and on that day, the son of the petitioner was residing in their house.

3. The defacto complainant mainly contended that there is a possibility of theft of gold jewelleries by the son of the petitioner and the complaint received on 23.02.2016 was taken on file and CSR copy was issued by the Adambakkam Police Station on 24.02.2016.

4. On the very same day, the petitioner and his wife were called upon to participate in the inquiry on 23.02.2016. Immediately, the petitioner and his wife went to Adambakkam Police Station.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail would contend that even before issuing CSR copy, the petitioner and his wife were subjected to harassment by the Police Officials at Adambakkam Police Station. Several allegations are raised against the Police Officers by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ proceedings. Finally, the gold jewelleries belonged to the wife of the petitioner was forcibly taken in the presence of Police Authorities and were handed over to the defacto complainant Mr.Mohamed Arif.

6. The apprehension by the defacto complainant was that the son of the petitioner could have stolen the jewels from the house of the defacto complainant. Merely based on the said apprehension, the Police Authorities called upon the petitioner and his wife to Adambakkam Police Station and forcibly instructed the petitioner and his wife to hand over their jewelleries in lieu of the stolen jewelleries to the defacto complainant, which was complied with by the petitioner and his wife in the presence of the Police Officials at Adambakkam Police Station.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the copy of the CSR was given on the next day i.e., on 24.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation and sent a complaint to the Home Secretary on 17.03.2016 for initiation of action against the Police Officers, who have ill-treated the petitioner and his wife and forcibly taken away their gold jewelleries and handed over the jewelleries to the defacto complainant in lieu of the stolen jewelleries as per the allegations raised by the defacto complainant in his complaint.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing on behalf of the second respondent would oppose the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the parties had compromised themselves before the Police Officers and the Police Officers had merely obtained statements from the defacto complainant and the petitioner along with his wife and therefore, they have not committed any irregularity and more-so, the complainant along with his wife had voluntarily offered to hand over their gold jewelleries in lieu of the alleged stolen jewelleries as per the complaint given by the defacto complainant.

9. The learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the first respondent would also oppose by stating that the respondents have acted at the request of the parties, since they have expressed their willingness to settle the matter. The Officials have acted