N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. and R.HEMALATHA, J. Police prection case full order nkkj 6 question to Dgp
H.C.P.No.542 of 2020
(Order of the Court was made by N.Kirubakaran, J)
It is a serious case where insensitivity has been shown by the police, even after receipt of message from the Public Prosecutors’ office about the filing of Petition before this Court. Inspite of the same, the police has failed to respond to the said notice.
2.The petition has been filed contending that the detenu has been thrown out of his property and has been ill-treated by his son and relatives and thus, he is standing in the street.
3.Inspite of giving complaint to the Police authorities on 25.01.2020 and also complaint to the higher authorities on 01.03.2020, no action has been taken. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent/Sub-Inspector of Police, Soonambedu Police Station practically threatened the detenu to settle the property in favour of his son and that is the reason why the petitioner has now added the 3rd respondent in his personal capacity. He also seeks to initiate action against the detenu’s son/4th respondent, 5th and 6th respondents, who are all brother-in-law of the detenu under the Senior Citizen Protections Act.
4.When the matter is called today, Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks time as the matter come up for admission. Today is Monday (09.03.2020) and the cause list has been published on Friday (06.03.2020) itself. Moreover, it is evident from the records that the petition has been filed on 02.03.2020 and it is has been numbered on 04.03.2020. The Public Prosecutors’ office which is entitled to get free advance copy of the petition is said to have sent online message to the concerned police station and the message is said to have been received by the concerned police station on 06.03.2020. Inspite of receipt of online message, even after three days, no information has been received from the concerned police station by the Public Prosecutors’ office. It shows that the police authorities are not only acting on complaints from the general public and register the FIR generally but also not responding even to the court notices also as noticed by this Court in many cases.
5.In this case, even the Public Prosecutors’ office also are unable to get necessary instruction from the police officials and it would go to show that the police are not responding the due process at all. Therefore, the 3rd respondent and 1st respondent shall appear before this Court on 12.03.2020 and explain as to why inspite of sufficient time, they have not sent the instructions to enable the Public Prosecutors’ office to state the facts before this Court, so that the matter could be disposed of at the earliest.
6.There is a failure on the part of Police, even to the Court notice as well as to the Public Prosecutors’ office message which will eventually delay the parties from getting justice. Therefore respondents 1 and 3 have to explain as to why there is a delay in responding to the message sent by the Public Prosecutors’ office. If the Public Prosecutors’ office is unable to get the instruction, even after three days, it will be an injustice to the parties.
7.It is pointed out by the detenu that one Ms.Dharaniswari, Inspector of Police (Law and Order, Soonambedu Police Station) and Mr.Parasuraman, Sub-Inspector of Police have threatened the detenu. Since the detenu’s son is stated to be a rowdy element, he has got close contact with police authorities and that is the reason why the detenu is being threatened. Therefore, the said officer Ms.Dharaniswari, Inspector of Police (Law and Order, Soonambedu Police Station) shall also appear before this Court on 12.03.2020.
8.Since the police themselves have threatened the detenu, there shall be a direction to the police to give police protection to the detenu. Though this Court feels that it may not be possible for each and every citizen to give police protection whenever there is a problem, in the instant case, the police themselves are said to have threatened the detenu and therefore, immediate police protection is ordered.
9.It is also brought to the notice of this Court that many persons have got orders from this Court for getting police protection and the same is continuing for many years. Therefore, the police machinery is unable to discharge its normal functions as police is necessary for law and order, V.I.P Bandhobasth, crime detection and many other duties. If every individual starts claiming police protection, it may not be possible for the police authorities. Therefore, this Court suo motu impleads the following officials as necessary parties to this proceedings:-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Fort St. George,
2.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai 04.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of the official respondents. The newly impleded respondents are directed to answer the following queries:
i. How many persons have been given police protection in Tamil Nadu?
ii. How many persons have been given police protection as per the order of this Court?
iii. For how many years in the case of individuals, police protection is being continued ?
iv. Whether the police has reviewed the threat perception of individual cases every year and take decision either to continue or discontinue the police protection?
v. In how many cases, the police felt that police protection given to the individuals are not necessary to continue?
vi. What are all the parameters to be followed to give police protection to the individuals?
10.This Court also comes to understand that certain persons who have been given police protection are going with armed guards and they are doing “Katta Panchayats”. If it is true, it is a serious issue and it has to be stopped. It is also stated that some people think that having a police guard is a matter of prestige and image building exercise.
11.For answering the queries and filing status report, call the matter on 12.03.2020.