0

Madras High Court Dismisses a writ petition as there are no merits to entertain and says it’s a civil dispute.

Blog, blog , , , ,

Title: R. Geethalakshmi Vs. The Tamil Nadu State.

Decided On: September 13, 2023.

W.P.(MD)No.18184 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.15013 of 2021.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar.

Facts:

The petitioner states that U. Senthilvel the fifth respondent is the tenant under the petitioner from the year 2016 and there was some dispute between them. On 22.08.2020, the fifth respondent along with his friends entered into the house of the petitioner, assaulted her husband and threatened him if he further demands any money, he would be done away. During the last week of October, 2020, the fifth respondent vacated the house, but locked the house and not handed over the key to the petitioner. Further, he failed to pay Rs.40,000/-, being the rental dues. Again, on 06.10.2020 the fifth respondent threatened and abused the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the fourth respondent against the fifth respondent and his mother. The fifth respondent is related to some Police Personnels, who are supporting him and therefore, the fourth respondent has not taken any action against him. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation dated 27.11.2020 to the second respondent. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present Writ Petition.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The petitioner and 5th respondent on an oral agreement of rent and the 5th respondent gave Rs.2,00,000 in advance. The fifth respondent and his mother were residing in the first floor of the petitioner’s house. The fifth respondent’s sister’s daughter used to bring food to his mother. On one such occasion, the petitioner’s husband made sexual torture to his sister’s daughter and also made improper touch, for which, a complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No.8 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 7, 8, 9(m), 9(u) and 10 of the POCSO Act has been registered by the All Women Police Station, Manamadurai. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner’s husband in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2020. The petitioner has been adopting all tactics, forcing the fifth respondent to ensure the withdrawal of the POCSO Act case registered against the petitioner’s husband and further informed that unless the POCSO Act case is withdrawn, the lease amount will not be repaid. He further submitted that on the complaint of the fifth respondent, the petitioner and her husband were called for enquiry. Initially, the petitioner herein appeared for enquiry before the third respondent and sought further time and thereafter, they did not appear for enquiry. It is a dispute between the landlord and tenant and hence, the Police getaway further action in this regard.   The petitioner neither participated in the enquiry nor preferred any proceedings before the Rent Control Court or any other civil forum, seeking appropriate remedy. On the other hand, she invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, which is not permissible in law and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Conclusion:

The petitioner and the fifth respondent had some dispute with regard to tenancy over the property, which can be sorted out between them or through the Civil Court. The respondent Police have rightly kept away from the civil dispute. It is also to be seen that the petitioner’s husband involved in a case relating to POCSO Act and the victim girl is related to the fifth respondent. The Court held Since there are no merits to entertain the present Writ Petition the same is liable to be dismissed.

“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

 

0

Madras High Court Directs the State to Verify Assets Declared By Police Officers, Confiscate Illegally Accumulated Wealth.

blog, Blog , ,

TITLE:  M.Rajendran and Ors Vs. The Secretary to Government and Ors. 

Decided On: July 12, 2023

W.P.No.6677 of 2010 and M.P.No.2 of 2010

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam

Introduction:

It is an interesting case, where the Government employees / Police Officials between themselves raising the allegations of corruption against each other, to the huge extent. Thus, it is imminent for this Court to consider the state of affairs and the large scale corruption amongst the Public Servants visibly noticed in the public domain. Though the Constitutional Courts emphasised that the corruption will stall the developmental activities, there is no considerable improvement in the matter of controlling the corruption in our Great Nation. Thus, this Court has taken a little effort to emphasis and to create awareness with a fond hope that some steps will be taken to minimise the corruption, by all concerned.

Facts:

The first petitioner was a Government employee. The petitioners two and three purchased a property in Sriperumpudur Village through a Sale Deed dated 17.09.2009 vide Document No.6938 of 2009 from M/s.Sri Rama Sankara Sharma alias Rama Nivasha Chari and his brother Krishna Sharma. The old building in the said property was demolished during October 2009. Knowing the fact that the petitioners two and three purchased the property , the tenth respondent, who is an Advocate and the eleventh respondent, who was a Councillor of Kancheepuram Municipality and his brother demanded money from the petitioners. On 23.12.2009 at about 4:00 a.m., respondents seven, eight and ten came to the house of the petitioners. The seventh respondent / Sub-Inspector of Police informed the petitioners one and three that they should go to the District Crime Branch to answer the complaints made against them regarding the purchase of property. The first petitioner went to the District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram with his son in their car. The seventh respondent was also got into the first petitioner’s car. Respondents eight and ten followed the petitioners in another car and came to the Police Station.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

Justice SM Subramaniam also directed the authorities to ensure that the procedure contemplated for confiscation of properties are adopted in all corruption cases and if necessary, interim attachments may also be made. The court also directed the Home Secretary and the DGP to ensure that Special Cells are constituted in the offices of DGP and Director General of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption by providing separate telephone numbers enabling citizens to raise complaints and provide information about corrupt activities in Government Departments. “The respondents one and two are directed to ensure that Special Cells are constituted in the offices of the Director General of Police and Director General of Vigilance and Anti-corruption by providing separate telephone numbers, mobile numbers/Whatsapp numbers enabling the citizens to register their complaints or provide information about corrupt activities in Government Departments and instrumentalities of the State,” the court said. The directions were made in a plea filed by M Rajendran, who was a Government Employee and against whom action initiated on the allegation of accumulation of disproportionate wealth along with other persons. The court noted that Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department had also initiated proceedings but the same were dropped. Though the plea was filed to quash the criminal proceedings against him and others, the court noted that the trial had already commenced and thus, the prayer as sought for could not be granted. However, the court directed the Judicial Magistrate to expedite the trial and dispose of the case. The court also noted that even though Rajendran had made specific allegation of corruption against some of the officers, the same was not properly enquired into by the Home Secretary, DGP or the Superintendent of Police. The court observed that even though it was possible that bald allegations are made by the accused, if such allegations were made with specific incidents including date, time, amount given to the police etc, the higher officials could not close their eyes and an enquiry was warranted to cull out the truth and take actions if necessary.

Conclusion:

The Madras High Court has directed the Secretary to Government (Home Department) and the Director General of Police to verify the mandatory declarations given by the police officials as per Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Officers Conduct Rules, 1964, and take all appropriate actions in case of any discrepancies.

“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