This case discloses a lamentable state of affairs.A tale of woe has unfolded itself revealing how the principal characters who are high ranking police officials in charge of the District of Coimbatore in the matter of enforcement of law discharge their sacred duty in a cavalier fashion with a deep sense of irresponsibility and an obdurate disinclination to see the obvious ever ready to take shelter under the slogan 'it is a Civil dispute'.Here are the facts which bear out the remarks made above.The gist of the complaint is as follows :-"Grave injustice has been done to the petitioner and her family by Coimbatore Police Officers Thiru Muthuswamy, D.S.P., Thiru Nazimuddin and Thiru Madhavan B-3 Police Station Inspectors.On the basis of a false complaint made by Balasubramanian of Baba Theatre, the petitioner's husband" was arrested on 19-2-1989 in spite of anticipatory bail having been obtained by him in the High Court and was kept in the Police Station for a day and a half and ill-treated and thereafter confined in the Central Jail, Coimbatore.On 21-2-1989 when the petitioner was in her sister-in-law's place in Chittalancherry, Palghat Taluk, the petitioner and her sister-in-law were arrested by Coimbatore Inspector Thiru Madhavan and other Police people who came along with Baba Complex Bala-subramanian, Coimbatore D.M.K. leader Thiru Prabhakaran and they were taken to a dingy house in the outskirts of Coimbatore in garden, where they were illtreated and their signatures obtained on blank papers.Thereafter, on 24-2-1989 at 3 a.m. they were taken to B-3 Police Station, Coimbatore and the office of the D.S.P., Coimbatore and illtreated 23-2-1989 evening the petitioner's husband was brought to B-3 Police Station and all of them were taken to the office of the D.S.P. and under threat they were "compelled to sign an agreement for sale in favour of Rangasamy, an employee of Baba Theatre and Murugesa Gounder, a creditor of the petitioner's husband, for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- as if they had received a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- in cash.The petitioner had filed C.S. No. 175 of 1989 in this Court that the agreement was not valid.As there was danger to the property and life of the petitioner, she could not go to Coimbatore and she was staying in Madras.On 4-3-1989 in the night, a Police party along with an army of goondas went to the petitioner's house and found the relatives and servants of the petitioner and removed them along with all the articles in the house without any exception in a van and 4 or 5 lorries.Thereafter, Balasubramanian and goondas occupied the house.The petitioner has got documentary evidence to prove the same and desired to meet the addressee in person and place the evidence before him.There is danger to the life of the petitioner, her husband and her son and there is a threat that the entire family will be wiped off.As big police officials are threatening the petitioner and her family, they have taken refuge under the addressee.The petitioner does not believe anybody else and prays for protection for herself and her family.The petitioner or her husband is not in a position to go to Coimbatore and file any proceeding in Court as there is no protection for them in Coimbatore.The second respondent is Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.The third respondent is the D.I.G. of Police, Coimbatore.Respondents 4 to 6 are the parties at whose instance, according to the petitioner, the police committed the atrocities mentioned in her complaint.Respondents 7 to 9 are the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore and Sub-Inspector of Police, B-3 Police Station, Coimbatore, respectively.Another telegram was sent to the second respondent.He in turn forwarded it to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who sent it to the Inspector, B-2, Police Station for enquiry and report.On the back of the telegram, there is an endorsement that a report was submitted after compliance.Obviously, no action was taken thereon, as the earlier telegram addressed to the third respondent had been forwarded to the Superintendent of Police.The second respondent sent a communication to the third respondent on 10-5-1989 with the complaint given by the petitioner to the Chief Ministry of the State, requiring him to enquire immediately and send a report within five days.There was a warning that even if there was a delay by one day, action would be taken against the persons concerned.That was received by the third respondent on 15-5-1989, and forwarded to the Superintendent of Police on 18-5-1989 calling for a report before 21-5-1989 without fail.There were reminders by the third respondent to the Superintendent of Police on 24-5-1989 and 30-5-1989 requiring him to send his report immediately in order that a report may be sent to the CM Cell.The petitioner had given a complaint on 15-3-1989 to the Inspector General of Police, Madras, containing the same allegations as found in the complaint dated 27-3-1989 made to the third respondent.In fact, the petitioner's husband has referred to the same in paragraph 6 of his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.As per the report, the statement of the petitioner could not be recorded as she was not available at Coimbatore and confidential enquiry revealed the following facts :-P. K. Unni was residing at Door No. 55, S.R.P. Nagar, Coimbatore.He was a film producer having his office at No. 17, 3rd Street, Habibullah Road, Madras.He had taken loan from Balasubramaniam, Managing Director, Baba Films, Coimbatore" and K. Murugesan, Managing Partner, M/s. Murugesan Enterprises, Financiers and Exhibitors, Coimbatore and also from Thiru.Velavendan, Ex.-Minister, Madras and producing films.Subsequently neither he produced the films nor return the loans to the above parties.On 31-1-89 at 18.15 hrs.a case in B-3 Kattoor P.S. Cr. No. 219/89 under section 420, I.P.C. was registered on the complaint preferred by Balasubramaniam, Managing Director, Sri Baba Films, No. 1 Gopalapuram 2nd Street, CBE, by sub-Inspector Thiru.Subramaniam B-3 Crimes.On 20-2-89 at 05.30 hrs.at 55 S. R. P. Nagar, Coimbatore the said Unni was arrested by Tr.Ramamoorthy, Sub-Inspector of Police B-3 Crime and he was remanded to judicial custody on the same day.It is true that the said P. K. Unni obtained an anticipatory bail in the High Court, Madras on 2-1-89 for the case in Cr. No. not known of 1989 on the file of Inspector B-2 Police Station, Coimbatore."On 20-2-89 at 22.00 hrs.on the complaint of Balasubramaniam M. D. Sri.Baba Films, Coimbatore against P. K. Unni, his son Dileesh and Seethalakshmi and 2 others, a case in B-3 Kattoor P.S. Cr. No. 327/89 under section 342, 347, 364, 365, I.P.C. was registered for abducting the Accountant Remanathan on 19-2-89 in the Car when Balasubramaniam and Ramanathan, the Accountant approached Unni and his family members to settle the issue on the request made by Unni over phone.On 21-2-89, S.I. Tr. A. K. Madhavan of B-3 Kattoor Law and Order Police Station with PC 991 Muthu and W.P.C. 1804 Rejeswari and 1714 Jayadevi visited Citalanjeri, Palghat district and brought Seethalakshmi, her sister-in-law Kalyani to B-3 Kattoor P.S. at 16.00 hrs."During the enquiry it reveals that it is a civil dispute about the money transaction.Hence D.S.P. advised the parties to settle the issues either among themselves or in the Court of law.They effected a compromise among themselves in the presence of lawyers representing all the parties and a deed was executed.As such no further action need to be taken on the petition.The Range Office original references are retransmitted herewith."Enquiry reveals that the petitioner is having her own house at Dr. No. 55, S.R.P. Nagar, Coimbatore which is in "R. S. Puram P.S. limits.It is not the case of respondents 4 to 6 in C.S. No. 175 of 1989 in which they are defendants 1 to 3 that there was any panchayat or compromise as a result of which an agreement for sale was entered into by the petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in that suit.According to them, possession was with respondents 4 and 5 from 24-2-1989 when a portion of the house was delivered by the petitioner and from 26-2-1989 when the rest of the house was delivered to them.That fact itself should have put them on the trail and they should have continued the investigation.Stranger is the statement found in the last report dated 21-6-1989 that the petitioner was not available at Madras and her whereabouts were not known.She filed an application in the High Court to appoint an advocate Commissioner to take an inventory of the articles in her house at Coimbatore, lock the house and deposit the key in the Court.On 3-3-1989 Thiru Haja Naziruddin was appointed as Commissioner by the Madras High Court to take an inventory of the articles in the house and to find out who was in possession of the same.On 4-3-1989, the Commissioner inspected the house in the morning and took an inventory of all the articles and also noted that the petitioner's son and other relatives were in the house.He filed a report in the High Court to that "effect.The petitioner prays for return of all "the articles taken away by Balasubramanian, the police party and the army of goondas from their house on 4-3-1989".That was followed by a personal meeting of the petitioner's counsel with the third respondent and a copy of the same complaint was also handed over to him.There being no information or indication of the action taken on the complaint, the petitioner's counsel sent a letter on 7-6-1989 to the third respondent that he had no information of the action taken by the latter and requested him to cause the furnishing of the file number of the case etc. There was also a hint in the letter that the writ Court will be moved, if needed.But, the petitioner continued to be kept in dark without any information of the action taken on her complaint.Hence, the petitioner was obliged to move this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issue of a Mandamus to the second respondent to initiate at once appropriate enquiry and investigation into the complaint of the petitioner against respondents 4 to 9 as contained in the written complaint dated 27-3-1989 submitted to the third respondent annexed as Annexure A to the writ petition.The first respondent in the writ petition is the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government.Notice of motion was ordered on 21-6-1989 returnable in two weeks.The other respondents entered appearance shortly thereafter.He felt that the matter should be heard by me as I had dealt with the civil dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 4 to 6 on the other, on the original side and as a contempt application was pending before me relating to the same matter.At his instance, the papers were placed before the Officiating Chief Justice who directed the writ petition to be posted before me with the contempt matter.However, I had to adjourn the matter to another date to enable the writ petitioner to file a supplemental affidavit explaining an omission in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.In spite of the fact that appearance had been entered in the writ petition as early as on 28-6-1989 by respondents 2 and 3, neither of them gave any serious thought to this proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India relating to an indictment made against some senior Police officials of Coimbatore.It is stated therein that on 15-3-1989 a complaint in writing was submitted to an Inspector General of Police, one Mr. Dorairaj who was later met by the deponent's counsel and who asked the counsel to go to Coimbatore and meet the third respondent personally.The complaint handed over to the Inspector General of Police, Madras, was forwarded to the third respondent, who sent it to the Superintendent of Police on 10-4-1989 calling for a report from the latter.Thus, the Superintendent of Police had with him the telegraphic complaint as well as the written complaint given to the Inspector General of Police, Madras, and the complaint addressed to the Chief Minister of the State.On 21-2-89, Dileesh Kumar, s/o.Unni also came to B-3 Kattoor P.S. by that time.Then the Sub-Inspector questioned them and sent them out subsequently.On 23-2-89 Tr. K. K. Muthusamy, D.S.P., L&O enquired into the matter on the petition given by Balasubramaniam and Murugesan with Unni and others.The commissioner Tr.Khaja Nizirudeen appointed by the High Court, Madras visited the place on 4-3-89 and he would have submitted a report to the High Court.The agreement was prepared and accepted by both the parties will-fully and there is no foul play.Further a civil suit is also pending in the High Court over the issue.The third respondent was not satisfied with the report.He returned it to the Superintendent of Police immediately with the following endorsement dated 1-6-1989 :-"Retd.(i) The S.P. will send for the petitioner, examine her and record her statement as told by her.(ii) He will also examine other connected persons.(iii) He must also go through the records/ documents if any in this episode (relating to dispute between the petitioner and one Baba complex.(iv) Pl."Inspector of Police, Bs (L&O) P.S. conducted an enquiry on the allegations made in this telegram.Cases have been registered against the petitioner and her husband both in B-3 L&O and crime Police Stations.It is learnt that the petitioner's husband owed some lakhs of rupees to the counter petitioners, Balu and Murugesa Gounder, for which a Panchayat was held.Then the petitioner herself vacated the premises and gave it for the counter-petitioner's possession.Subsequently, on consulting her advocates, she sent up this telegram, alleging that her mother and servants were forcibly evicted from her residence.Now this dispute is pending in the High Court, Madras.Under these circumstances this telegram needs no further action."Thus, on 10-6-1989, the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore, had with him not only the records previously sent to him but also the letter of petitioner's counsel dated 7-6-1989 and the documents enclosed therewith.It is necessary to point out here that the following documents were enclosed with the petitioner's counsel's letter dated 7-6-1989 :-Copy of report and list filed by advocate Commissioner.Copy of High Court judgment in application for redelivery of house.Detailed list of articles and statement of value.The receipt of these documents cannot be disputed as they are found among the records produced by the third respondent before this Court.It should also be mentioned at this stage that on 29-4-1989 the advocate Commissioner appointed by me to redeliver possession of the house to the petitioner with the aid of the police had approached the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore with a request to depute personnel to help him in taking possession of the house and delivering it to the petitioner.The Superintendent of Police had instructed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to do the needful and directed the advocate-Commissioner to meet the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is the 7th respondent herein.The 7th respondent deputed one Inspector by name Mr. Chinnasamy from the Control Room and seven constables.What happened thereafter is not relevant for the purpose of this case.On 12-6-1989, the third respondent called upon the Superintendent of Police to expedite his report immediately as an urgent report to CM's Cell was being held up.In reply thereto, the Superintendent of Police informed the third respondent by communication dated 15-6-1989 which was received by the third respondent on 19-6-1989 that a Sub-Inspector of Police from District Special Branch, Coimbatore Urban had been directed to Madras to obtain a written statement from the petitioner herein and on receipt of the same, the report will be sent to the third respondent shortly.On 21-6-1989, the following report is sent by the Superintendent of Police to the third respondent and received by him on 22-6-1989 :-"The petitioner Smt. Seethalakshmi is not available at Madras in the address, furnished by her in the petition.Since this is a civil dispute petitioner has to seek remedy through the Court only.In these circumstances it is opined that no further action needs to be taken on this petition."On the basis of the said report, the third respondent sent a report to the second respondent, the relevant portion of which reads as follows :-"This petition was enquired into by the Inspector District Special Branch, CBE Urban.The petitioner's husband Tr.Unni has been arrested on 20-2-89 and sent for judicial custody on the same day on a complaint preferred by the CP.Balasubramaniam "dealt in B-3 Kattur PS Cr.No. 219/89 under section 420 I.P.C. On 21-2-89, on another complaint of abduction preferred by the CP dealt in B-3 Kattur PS Cr. No. 327/89, under section 342, 347, 364, 365, I.P.C., the petitioner her son and sister-in-law have been arrested and let off subsequently.On 23-2-89, as per the advise of the DSP-City L&O both the parties effected a compromise among themselves in the presence of lawyers representing all the parties and a deed was executed.Records produced before me do not disclose the names of the persons who were enquired and whether any statement was recorded from any person by the Inspector who is supposed to have held the enquiry.The enquiry is described as confidential in one place and discreet in another place.The enquiry was not held with a view to find out the truths.But, it was done with a view to submit a report on the lines drawn already.While the report dated 4-6-1989 states that the petitioner herself vacated the premises and gave it to the counter petitioners' possession pursuant to a panchayat, the report dated 27-5-1989 contained the version that a compromise was effected in the presence of lawyers representing all the parties and a deed was executed, but strangely Balasubramanian took possession of the house on 4-3-1989 night after the advocate-Commissioner visited the place and took an inventory of the articles found in the house.As pointed out already, the third respondent as well as the Superintendent of Police had with them the letter of the petitioner's counsel dated 7-6-1989, which displayed his phone number.The easiest thing for them was to have contacted the petitioner's counsel by phone and ascertained the whereabouts of the petitioner.It should be noted that this writ petition was filed on 21-6-1989, the date borne by the last report of the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore.The report dated 27-5-1989 admits the factum of anticipatory bail obtained by the petitioner's husband.Secondly, the third respondent asserts categorically that the petitioner's husband was never arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B-3 Police Station, Law and Order, i.e., the 9th respondent.The fact that the petitioner's husband was arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police B-3 Police Station is admitted by respondents 8 and 9 in their counter-affidavits, though according to them the person who actually arrested him was not the 9th respondent but a Sub-Inspector who was temporarily in charge as respondents 8 and 9 had gone on leave on the relevant date.The third respondent may try to take shelter under a technicality that his statement pertained only to an arrest by the 9th respondent.It is not fair on the part of a high official like the third respondent to make an assertion that the petitioner's husband was never arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B-3 Police Station when the records produced by him and the counter-affidavits filed by respondents 8 and 9 prove to the contrary.Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 contended that the complaint dated 27-3-1989 did not give full particulars of the persons who are said to have committed the offence.According to him, the names of the persons who formed the the police party or the army of goondas said to have accompanied the 6th respondent on the night of 4-3-1989 are not furnished in the complaint.The rule does not give a license to any party to a civil dispute to indulge in crimes.

Relevant sections: Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code