# Inspector of Police. Archives

TITLE: C. Sivaraja Vs. The Superintendent of Police.

Decided On: September 11, 2023.

Writ Petition (MD) No.18635 of 2021.

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Nirmal Kumar.

Facts:

The marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent was solemnized on 25.01.2021 at Nilakottai. The marriage was initiated by his wife’s family. Prior to the marriage, there were frequent meetings between them. During one such meeting, the third respondent informed that her parents were unable to arrange for money to celebrate the marriage function and hence, requested the petitioner to assist by giving Rs.5,00,000/-, which was received by the respondents 5 and 6 on 02.12.2020. After receipt of Rs.5,00,000/-, the marriage was solemnized on 25.01.2021. At that time, the petitioner’s father. given 10 sovereigns of gold chain and ½ sovereign of Mangalsutra to the third respondent and the petitioner’s father incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,62,000/-. Three days after the marriage, the third respondent went to her house for writing B.P.Ed. Examination and informed that she would return back within few days. On the contrary, the third respondent and her family members lodged a false complaint against the petitioner suppressing the real facts. Hence, the petitioner sent a petition, regarding the false complaint lodged by the third respondent.

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to take action against the respondents 3 to 7, who are his wife and in-laws, for threatening and cheating him and his parents, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 ½ sovereigns of gold chain and to recover the same from them, based on his complaint, dated 26.04.2021.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The Cases are pending on both the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent in the cases in Crime Nos. 10 of 2022 and 16 of 2022 had been registered against both of them and their family members. Now, investigation has been completed. Crime No.10 of 2022 registered against the petitioner and four of his family members for the offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(ii) I.P.C., is taken on file as C.C.No.597 of 2022, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai. Crime No. 16 of 2022 registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C. against the respondents 3 to 7 is taken on file as C.C.No.402 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai. Both the cases are pending trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai. The 3^rd respondent filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2022 for divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul and the same is pending.

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to take action against the respondents 3 to 7 for threatening and cheating the petitioner and his parents a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 ½ sovereigns of gold chain and further direction to the second respondent to recover the same from them and hand over it to the petitioner, based on his complaint date 26.04.2021, which is much prior to the registration of the criminal cases against both the groups. The court left it open to the parties to put forth their contentions before the Trial Court in the pending cases.

Conclusion:

Even though there are pending cases before the trail court the Madras High Court directed, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nilakottai to recover the Rs.5,00,000/- and 10 ½ sovereigns of gold chain and hand over it to the petitioner as the petitioner complained prior to filing a case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

Case Title: MA.Ranjith. … Petitioner
Versus

The Director General of Police. … Respondents

Date of Decision: Pronounced On 26.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND.

Citation: W.P. No.6901 of 2020.

Introduction:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to
issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondent to consider the representation dated 14.12.2019 submitted by the petitioner and for a consequential direction to the respondent to release the salary and benefits, which has to be paid to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

Facts:

The petitioner is the Inspector of Police working in Dharmapuri District. He contends that he has been discharging his duties with great honesty and due to his honest only, he had been transferred very often and he further submitted that he had been transferred nearly 39 times in his 20 years of service. He further contends that due to some high official issue, he had been transferred now and then and due to some higher official pressure and misadministration, his salary is kept hold for a long time. He also contends that he had submitted many representation to the administrative department about his pending salary, but no steps are taken till now. It is further stated by the petitioner that for four months i.e., from August to September 2019 salaries are also not paid. As he is totally depending on his salary, he is unable to manage his regular life and family. He also submits that his wife is suffering from cancer and he has to take care of her medical expenses and also his two children education and maintenance. In such circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition.

Issues:

Whether there was any violation ofright to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the actionof the respondent is not only illegal, unjust and arbitrary?

Legal Analysis:

When an Inspector of Police cadre officer submits a representation to the Director General of Police, who is the head of the Police Department to the State, if the said representation did not see the light of the day and no action is initiated, it itself proves how the petitioner is being harassed. If the respondent requires any further information from the petitioner to consider his representation and to pass appropriate orders, it is for the respondent to intimate. The petitioner admittedly, such intimation is not issued to the petitioner by the respondent.
This is one of the classic cases of lethargic attitude of the bureaucrats in our country. Every employee, who discharges his duties honestly, he would expect payment of his salary regularly from the employer, without any unreasonable delay. The employee has to survive himself and he has to feed his family and also to take care of all necessities of his family members, from the salary, he is getting. In the present case, as the petitioner contends that his wife is suffering from cancer, definitely, he has to meet her medical expenses. Due to non payment of salary and non-consideration of his representation for four years i.e., from the year 2019, all the members of the family of the petitioner had suffered mentally and financially. Thereby, they are forced to suffer irreparable loss and hardships.

Judgement:

As such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the respondent has failed to discharge his duty to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner on 14.12.2019, which is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, irrational and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court noted that in the present case, though notice was ordered in March 2020, no counter-affidavit was filed. The court on June 21 had directed the Government Advocate to get instructions with regard to the status of the representation filed by Ranjith. Upon perusing the status report filed by the Additional Advocate General, the court found that though some reasons were mentioned, the same seemed to have been invented to file the status report and that the representation had not been disposed of by the DGP. The court allowed the petition and directed the DGP to take appropriate action within a week. “In the present case, as the petitioner contends that his wife is suffering from cancer, definitely, he has to meet her medical expenses. Due to non-payment of salary and non-consideration of his representation for four years i.e., from the year 2019, all the members of the family of the petitioner had suffered mentally and financially. Thereby, they are forced to suffer irreparable loss and hardships,” said the court. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the
respondent to examine the representation dated 14.12.2019 submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate action within a period of one week from 26.06.2023.

Conclusion:

While providing relief to a Police Inspector with respect to his pending salary, the Madras High Court criticized the Director General of Police for n not considering the representation made by him in 2019. The action of the respondent is not only illegal, unjust and arbitrary and it is violation of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

Madras High Court directs, The Inspector of Police to recover the money and gold and hand over to the petitioner even there are pending cases.

Madras High Court names Classic cases of lethargic attitude of the bureaucrats in our country.