The Madras High Court Bench here on Friday directed a litigant to pay a cost of Rs.10,000 to a Sub-Inspector of Police and a head constable for having instituted multiple litigations “with the sole intention of harassing the two policemen who had performed their duty in accordance with law.”
Justice P.N. Prakash passed the order while dismissing a criminal revision case and a writ petition filed by K. Nallaperumal of Palayamkottai in Tirunelveli district. The petitioner had sought criminal prosecution as well as departmental action against the two policemen. Recalling the case, the judge said the petitioner had lodged a complaint with the policemen in 2008 accusing his wife and son of preventing him from entering his house. Then, he had also pressed the charge of criminal intimidation.
Initially, the police refrained from booking the case. Then, the petitioner approached the High Court and obtained an order to register it. After registering a case, the police succeeded in getting it closed by filing a negative order before a judicial magistrate. In the report, the policemen had said the complainant was libidinous and had amorous inclinations towards women. It led to frequent quarrels between him and his family members who had not committed any offence as alleged by him.
Before accepting the report, the magistrate directed the police to serve a court notice on the complainant. The police served the notice at the address mentioned by the petitioner in his complaint. But since he did not file any protest petition, the court closed the case. Aggrieved over the closure, the petitioner preferred a private complaint before a lower court accusing the two policemen of having intentionally serving the notice at his residence despite knowing well that he was not residing with his family ever since he lodged the case. The lower court dismissed the private complaint and hence the present revision. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the higher officials in the police department to prevent the SI from superannuating. Wondering how could a government servant be prevented from superannuating, the judge said the police could not be faulted for having served the notice in an address provided by the petitioner. In so far as the allegations levelled by the police against the petitioner was concerned, the judge said the Investigating Officer had formed such an opinion only on the basis of information provided by the petitioner’s wife and son.
