The Madras High Court on Wednesday stayed all further proceedings in a matter pending before the Tamil Nadu State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes against the Salem Superintendent of Police M. Sree Abhinav for not having registered a First Information Report (FIR) on the basis of a complaint lodged by a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste.
Justice G. Chandrasekharan also granted an interim injunction restraining the Commission from summoning the SP as well as the Attur Deputy Superintendent of Police for inquiry. The interim orders were passed on a joint writ petition filed by the two officers questioning the authority of the commission to summon police officials and conduct a roving inquiry.
Appearing for the petitioners, Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak told the court there was a dispute between the scheduled caste and Caste Hindu residents of Vadakumarai village in Attur Taluk since August last year over worshipping the deities in the local Kalahastheeswarar and Varadharajaperumal Temple.
Since the peace committee meetings held by the revenue as well as local police officials did not yield a positive result, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department decided to take over the administration of the temple. The Caste Hindus refused to handover the keys and moved a writ petition against such take over.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition on September 5 with a direction to the HR&CE officials to break open the temple doors with police protection and also to install closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras. Pursuant to the court order, a HR&CE department appointed Fit Person took charge on September 12 and harmony had been established.
At this juncture, the SP received a communication from the Commission on May 11 with a direction to supervise the investigation on a complaint lodged by one A. Thangavel and to submit a report on June 11. On verification, it was found that no such investigation was pending. Yet, the SP forwarded the Commission’s letter to the DSP for necessary action.
Since the complaint had been annexed with the Commission’s communication, the DSP issued summons to the complainant twice directing him to appear for a preliminary inquiry but he did not turn up. Since the complainant had been lodged against government officials, the DSP inquired the latter and did not find any substance to register a FIR.
The SP forwarded the DSP’s negative report to the Commission on August 5 and the latter issued summons to both officers seeking an explanation as to why a preliminary inquiry was conducted and a FIR was not registered straightaway. Assailing the summons, the SP said, it was for the investigating officer to find out whether a cognisable offence had been made out or not.
He said, if the police refuses to register a FIR, the complainant must pursue other remedies available under criminal law. Instead, the Commission’s directive to him to supervise a non existing investigation was heard of, the SP said in his affidavit
