Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
S Velankanni v Chitradevi & Ors

S Velankanni v Chitradevi & Ors

Ratings: (0)|Views: 498 |Likes:
Published by barandbench
S Velankanni v Chitradevi & Ors
S Velankanni v Chitradevi & Ors

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: barandbench on Apr 22, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 10.04.2013CoramTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMAW.P.No.914 of 2006S.Velankanni .. Petitioner .. Vs ..1.ChitradeviSub-Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station, Dharmapuri.2.GunavathiJudicial Magistrate I,Dharmapuri.3.Deputy Superintendent of Sub-Jail for Women,Sub-Jail for Women, Dharmapuri.4.State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. By its Secretary,Secretariat, Fort St.George,Chennai. .. RespondentsPrayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for theissuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner.For Petitioner : Ms.Sudha RamalingamFor Respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran, AGPfor R1, R3 and R4
 Mr.V.R.Sivakumar for R2
O R D E R 
The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in thenature of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 4 to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (RupeesFive lakhs only) to the petitioner and grant such other remedies as this Hon'ble Court may deemfit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. In support of the writ petition, it is averred that the petitioner is a resident of S.Kollapatti Village belonging to Christian Dobhi Community. One John Kennedy son of Swamikanu, belonging to Christian Vanniar Community, who is a permanent resident of neighbouring village, Selliayampatti was in love with the petitioner, and he promised to marryher.3. It is the case of the petitioner that it was on the false assurance of John Kennedy, shedeveloped intimacy with him, which resulted in her becoming pregnant. The petitioner askedJohn Kennedy to marry her, but he refused to do so and instead, insulted her. He also tried to bribe the petitioner to abort the pregnancy. This act of John Kennedy made her file a complaintwith the Police on 16.10.2000, which was registered as FIR 18 of 2000 under Sections 417, 493and 506(ii) I.P.C and was taken on the file of the second respondent in P.R.C.No.41 of 2002.4. It was stated that the Police after initial investigation arrested John Kennedy, andremanded him to judicial custody on 16.10.2000. On 17.10.2000, the accused John Kennedywas brought from Sub-jail and taken to the Government Hospital for medical check-up. The petitioner was also taken to the hospital on the same day by the Police for medical check-up.After medical check-up, the accused was taken back to sub-jail and the petitioner was produced before Respondent No.2 (Ms.K.Gunavathi), the then Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.5. It was further stated that the Respondent No.2 (Judicial Magistrate), without enquiringanything about the case, remanded the petitioner to judicial custody for 15 days. The petitioner was taken to sub-jail for women in Dharmapuri by Respondent No.3 at 5.30 p.m. The petitioner was not aware, as to why, she was remanded to judicial custody. She was not told any reasonabout her arrest either by respondent- 1 Police or Respondent No.2.6. It is further stated that besides harassment by John Kennedy, the petitioner had tosuffer physical and mental tortures by the act of the respondents, in mechanically remanding her to judicial custody. The case of the petitioner, therefore is that she has been kept in illegalconfinement without any authority of law under the illegal order passed by the secondrespondent.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that she was ill-treated in the jail as she was not allowedto change her dress and had to go without a bath for three days, and she was not even given proper medical help. The petitioner, however, was released after three days on 21.10.2000 atabout 5.00 p.m due to an application moved by a legal aid lawyer, who had visited the sub-jailand to whom she had told her miserable plight.8. The petitioner, thereafter, received a "summons to an accused person" under Section61 of Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under Section 419, 376, 90 and 506 (ii) I.P.C as if she was an accused.9. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation to the Chairman of the Tamil NaduState Women's Commission about her plight and requested to secure punishment for the accusedand to take action against the police for implicating her in the case and making the victim, anaccused. It was on the said complaint, DNA test was conducted and the paternity of her malechild was established to be that of John Kennedy, the accused.10. On 03.07.2004, the Revenue Divisional officer, conducted an enquiry about theincident pursuant to the petitioner's complaint to the Women's Commission. The petitioner informed the facts of the case to the officer. It is her case, that no action has been taken on her complaint.11. It is the case of the petitioner that the case was committed to Sub-Court, Dharmapuriand numbered as S.C.No.74 of 2004 in April 2004. After committal, though the petitioner wasasked to be present in the Court for deposing as a witness for every hearing, there was no progress in the case. Neither the petitioner nor any other witness was examined in the casethough she attended the Court on several hearings.12. On the pleadings referred to above, compensation is prayed for by the petitioner onthe ground that the action of the second respondent in remanding her to judicial custodymechanically is against law and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as itaffected her right to liberty. In addition, the issuance of summons as an accused person byrespondent No.2 added insult to the injury, as firstly, the petitioner was kept in illegal custodyunder the orders of the second respondent for two days.13. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the guidelines laid down in D.K.Basu'scase was not adhered to while arresting and remanding her to judicial custody. Therefore, the petitioner has claimed compensation for mental torture, agony and illegal detention amounting toRs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only).14. Respondent No.2, the Judicial Magistrate, has filed an affidavit, wherein, it is statedthat she has joined as Judicial Officer on 03.02.1998 and is discharging her duty in anunblemished and appreciable way and manner. It is stated that she always discharges her duties

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->