IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W.P.No.25871 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 K.Rajendran … Petitioner Vs

1.The Dy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range, Villupuram.

2.The Addl., Director General of Police, L & O Chennai – 4 … Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondents 1 & 2 in connections with the impugned orders passed by them in R.O.No.241/2009 C.No.B2/PR No.19/2009, dated 27.08.2009 and RC.No.179362/AP1(2)/2009, dated 03.07.2010 and quash the same and grant such other further relief.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkataramani Sr., Counsel for Mr.M.Muthuppan For Respondents : Mr.R.Neethi Perumal GA for RR1 & 2

ORDER

The instant Writ Petition had been filed challenging the order of punishment and the order modifying the initial order of punishment.

2.Heard Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Neethi Perumal, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner while working as a Head Constable at Arakantanallur Police Station had received an intimation of a crime on 16.03.2006, from the Government hospital Pondicherry. Based upon the said intimation, the petitioner had gone to Pondicherry and had registered an FIR. Pursuant to the said FIR, he had also visited the spot and prepared a rough sketch by recording the statement of witnesses there. He would further submit that thereafter the FIR had been altered, investigation was carried out by the Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police. While that being so, a charge memo was issued to him for filing the FIR belatedly and also for preparing a rough sketch which was not correctly prepared and not arresting the third accused. He would submit that as regards the first charge, there was no information about the crime that had taken place on 14.03.2006 and only on intimation from the hospital at Pondicherry, the petitioner was aware of such a crime and as on the day, he was on duty and he had proceeded to Pondicherry and examined the victim and recorded a complaint from her and thereafter registered an FIR. During the pendency of the FIR, the complainant's husband, who was also inflicted with the injuries and who had been admitted to the hospital in Villupuram, was discharged on 23.03.2006 and thereafter, on 29.03.2006 he died. On his death, the original FIR was altered as an FIR 302, including the offence under Section 302 and was investigated by his superiors. A charge sheet had also come to be filed in SC.No.42 of 2008 and in the said case by the judgment of the Trial Court, dated

13.07.2009, acquitted all the accused as the prime witnesses to the case who had turned hostile. He would heavily rely upon the judgment of the Trial Court to contend that the complainant had admitted in the examination that the petitioner had examined the complainant only at Pondicherry hospital, which was pursuant to the intimation that had been received by him.

4.He would further contend that there is no intimation of the crime either from Thirukoilur hospital where originally the complainant had taken for treatment and also from Villupuram hospital, where the husband of the complainant had taken treatment. He would also submit that the imputation of the charges also do not suggest any intimation from either Villupuram hospital or Thirukoilur hospital. He would further submit that the incident had been reported only after two days and immediately on intimation, he had registered the FIR on visiting the complainant at Pondicherry, where she was being treated and visited the site and drawn a rough sketch based on the witnesses available at the place of incident. He would submit even that witness had turned hostile. He would submit that the husband of the complainant had di