IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13/02/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.8149 OF 2003 AND CRL.M.P.No.2872 OF 2003. Ms.Arokia Mary Lucia ... Petitioner -Vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Collector, Villupuram. 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee, Villupuram District. 4.Mr.Prabhakaran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee, Villupuram District. 5.Mr.Chinnaraj Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam, Villupuram District. 6.The Sub Inspector of Police, Avalurpet Police Station, Villupuram District. 7.Mrs.Deivayanai 8.Central Bureau of Investigation by its Joint Director, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.P.Rathinam ^For R.1 to R.6 : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Govt.Advocate (crl.side) For R.7 : No appearance For R.8 : Mr.N.Ranganathan, Spl.P.P. for CBI :O R D E R The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 4 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to: (1) call for the entire records connected with Cr.No.427 of 2002 on the file of the 6th respondent, which is being investigated by the third respondent and quash the same, (2)direct the respondents 1 to 6 to pay fair, just and reasonable compensation to the petitioner for the foisting of the false case against her and also direct the 7th respondent to pay the amount, as this Court may deem fit and proper, to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority for her part in the incident; and (3)direct the 8th respondent to take over the investigation of the case in Cr.No.428/2002 and also the commissions and omissions of a number of public servants in dealing with Cr.No.427/2002, conduct the investigation under the direct supervision of the Joint Director of CBI at Chennai. 2. The petitioner, a practicing Advocate at Gingee in Villupuram District having enrolled in the year 2001, would submit in her affidavit that she is a social worker working among the downtrodden Dalits in particular the Dalit women; that before her enrolment as an Advocate, she served as a nun of Services Congregation under the Roman Catholic Church for more than a decade and during the said period, she qualified herself as a Staff Nurse and was serving as such in the dispensaries run by the Congregation in the slums of Kolkotta and also at the Maria Matern Hospital, Sargani in Sivaganga District; that when she was serving as such, she came across various incidents of atrocities committed against the Dalits, more particularly the Dalit women and in order to assist the Dalits, she left the Congregation for getting more access to the legal system and as illiteracy and poverty were the main reasons for the sufferings of Dalits, she thought it fit to equip herself to help them in their causes and hence did her M.A.( Political Science) and completed the law course in the year 1998 as a result of which she was able to effectively assist the deprived Dalits, whenever they were attacked and atrocities were committed against them. 3. The petitioner would further submit that she participated in a number of struggles to espouse the varied causes of Dalits and assisted the victims of Kunduppatti in Kodaikanal (1998), Ogalur of Perambalur District (1999), Chidambaram Poll violence (1999) etc. to get justice to the Dalits by getting the legal and other reliefs; that she is also instrumental in getting the complaints registered by the Police with regard to five cases of rape; that in the year 2001, when one Rita Mary was gang raped in Sub Jail, Gingee by the four wardens, it was she who first got to know the sexual violence committed on the said Rita Mary and assisted her in bringing the culprits to book; that she also approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.24090 of 2001 seeking CBI enquiry and compensation to the said Rita Mary wherein this Court was pleased to order CBCID enquiry and also ordered Rs.5 lakhs as compensation to her and now the trial in the said case is progressing before the Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam and she is cited as P.W.46 in the said case. 4. The petitioner would further submit that as the case of Rita Mary got wide publicity both in print and electronic media, a number of girls who were lured and raped, approached her for assistance, especially in Gingee Taluk, wherein she was residing for more than 14 years and naturally, to espouse the cause of the victim girls, most of whom are minors and dalits, she had to approach the police stations situated in Gingee Taluk to get their complaints registered and appropriate reliefs are granted; that she had a tough time in getting the complaints registered by the police as the police were totally insensitive coupled with the fact that such cases gave them ample scope for extracting money from the offenders, but however, her perseverance by pursuing the matters with the higher-ups and other statutory bodies made the police to act as per law. 5. Then, citing five cases wherein she assisted the victims, all were either raped or attempted to be raped, in getting the complaints registered by the Police, the petitioner would submit that the local Police were harbouring vengeance towards her as her effective assistance to the victims came in their way of extracting money from the offenders to protect them from law. The petitioner would further submit that while so, on 14.10.2002 night, when she was in her house, one Selvi, a Dalit girl from Ethapattu village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District, along with her parents came to her house and informed her that one Muthu, also a dalit of the same village, had committed the offence of rape against her and continued to commit the offence, making her believe that he would marry her and when the local panchayat was approached on 20.9.2002, the said Muthu disowned the offence and the pregnancy and hence the panchayatdars direct ed the victim to approach the police for appropriate action by giving a letter to that effect; that when the victim lodged a complaint with the Avalurpet Police Station on23.9.2002 against the said Muthu, the police did not take any action and therefore she requested the petitioner to help her and hence the petitioner accompanied the said Selvi on 15.10.2002 to the Avalurpet Police Station and insisted the Police to register the case, but the Police registered the case only on 16.10.2002 in Cr.No.423 of 2002. 6. The petitioner would further submit that on 16.10.2002, the said Selvi with her assistance sent a petition by fax to the Chief Minister and having come to know about the involvement of the petitioner in the matter through some reports which appeared in the local newspapers, on 18.10.2002 at about 7.30 a.m., a group of relatives of the said Muthu came and ransacked the residence of the petitioner and assaulted and threatened her with dire consequences; that even as the attack was on, she rang-up to the Avalurpet Police Station and other advocate colleagues and within 15 minutes, Mr.Inbasekaran and Mr. Kaliyamoorthy, both Constables attached to the Avalurpet Police Station came to her residence, but they could not control the mob and in the meantime Mr.Chiranjeevi, the Sub Inspector of Avalurpet Police Station arrived at the spot on instruction by the 4th respondent after getting information from one Mr.E.S.Jose, Advocate, and only at his arrival, the mob dispersed. 7. The petitioner would further submit that on the same day i.e. on 18.10.2002, evening, herself and three other Advocate-colleagues by names Mr.Jose, Vivekanandan and Venkatesan lodged a complaint with the fourth respondent against the seventh respondent herein, who is the aunt of the said Muthu, and others thus seeking prompt action, who instructed the 6th respondent to summon the accused to be present before him at 10.00 a.m. further requiring the petitioner also to come to the police station; that the fourth respondent forwarded the complaint to the concerned police station on 19.10.2002 and directed the Sub Inspector of Police to register the FIR and even though the Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint on 19.10.2002, he did not register the FIR nor did he take any action against the persons named in the complaint; that in the morning of 19.10.2002, she was informed that the accused persons named by the said Selvi appeared before the Avalurpet Police Station and they were accompanied by more than 100 persons secured in a lorry under the leadership of one Sakkarai of Paruthipuram Village, who is known for his nexus with the Avalurpet Police and who used to settle cases by extorting money from the parties and sharing with Police; that however, at about 1.30 p.m., when herself and her advocate-colleagues Vivekanandan and Venkatesan were proceeding towards Avalurpet Police Station, they met the fourth respondent near the Police Station and when they asked him about the enquiry with regard to the complaint, he replied that it was not possible for him to give protection to the petitioner all the time and therefore it was better for her to compromise the matter. 8. The petitioner would further submit that on 21.10.2002, a local Tamil Daily `Nam Dhinamathi' carried a news item, wherein it is reported that a complaint had been preferred by the seventh respondent herein, as if the petitioner abused her by making a mention of her caste name when she came along with others to the petitioner's house on 1 8.10.2002 with regard to the complaint preferred by Selvi of Ethapattu, and it was clear from the news report itself that the complaint was a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner and even though the 4th respondent was aware that the complaint preferred against the petitioner was totally false, the Police had deliberately registered the FIR in Cr.No.427 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act based on the said false complaint as if it was preferred earlier and registered her complaint preferred on 18.10.2002 only on 20.10.2002 to make it appear that they were acting promptly; that she was shocked over the sheer abuse of powers by the police, who were harbouring vengeance towards her and hence she sent a detailed representation dated 22.10.2002 to the respondents 1 and 2 and others but till date no action is initiated; that when the 5th respondent was in-charge of DSP, Gingee as the 4th respondent was on leave, she met him at Valathi P.S. on 23.12.2002 at about 11.00 a.m. to represent the case regarding the atrocity against dalits of Annamangalam, made by one Rajaram, the 5th respondent warned her that it was not proper on her part to represent, while the FIR is pending against her; that even a number of women, Human Rights and Dalit Activists also have made various representations to the respondents and others to look into the matter and withdraw the false case preferred against her; that she is given to understand that the false complaint is being hotly pursued with the recording of statements of four persons, including the 7th respondent under Section 164 Cr.P.C. only to teach her a lesson for having worked for the Rule of law and assisted the victims to take legal recourse. On such grounds, the petitioner would pray to the relief extracted supra. 9. In support of her case that the complaint registered against her in Cr.No.427 of 2002 is a false one, the petitioner would also submit two supporting affidavits filed by one Mr.E.S.Jose, a practicing Advocate at Thiruvannamalai and one Mr.Bakiyaraj who is a neighbour of the petitioner who will submit in their sworn affidavits that the petitioner is dedicated for the upliftment of the down-trodden and women. Mr.Bakiyaraj would further submit that he never heard her using filthy language against anybody even though the mob attacked and ransacked her house and that only a false case has been filed against her. 10. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would not only lay emphasis on those aspects covered in the above Criminal Original Petition but also would lay emphasis that the complaint in Crime No.427/2002 registered on the file of the 6 th respondent and investigated into by the 3rd respondent is an utter false case foisted by these police officials joining hands with the accused party in the rape case and picking-up the complainant who is the close relative of the said Muthu who raped the victim Selvi in the rape case registered in Crime No.423 of 2002 by the same police against one Muthu and five others on 16.10.2002 and the complainant since being the interested party, the police in order to curb the petitioner and such of her social activities in helping those who are under privileged in the society, have deliberately foisted the case particularly by the third and 6th respondents. 11. The learned counsel citing various complaints lodged in quick succession, the first one by one Selvi, the victim of rape by accused Muthu, in the 6th respondent's Cr.No.423/2002 and thereafter the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein and the complaint lodged by the complainant in this case against the petitioner, would submit that the police have chosen not to register the case on the complaint of the petitioner immediately, but in a relaxed manner, after registering the above false case against the petitioner under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on 20.10.2002 in Cr.No.427 of 2002, they have registered the case on the complaint of the petitioner subsequently in Cr.No.428 of 2002 as though the petitioner's complaint is the later complaint and that the other complaint is the earlier one in spit e of the other complaint having been lodged two days after the preference of the complaint by the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel would also cite the following cases: 1. 1996-1-L.W. (Crl) 110 (B.CHANDRA vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU AND OTHERS) 2. 1999-2-L.W. (Crl) 871 (P.ALAGARSAMY vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS) 3. 2003-1-L.W.(Crl).181 (NIRMALA RANI vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS) 13. So far as the first case cited above is concerned, the petitioner therein had not only prayed for setting at liberty one Sahadevan but also would seek a direction to the respondents to pay just and equitable compensation to the petitioner besides praying to order an independent and impartial enquiry by the officer of a CBI to go into the whole incident in which the Division Bench of this Court sitting on the judgment of a HCP had not only granted the first two reliefs, ordering a compensation of Rs.50,000/= to be paid by the State Government to the petitioner and her husband but declined to grant the third relief to transfer the case to the CBI but issued direction to the Inspector General of Police (Crimes) CBCID to register the case and investigate into and file the final report against the erring officials as early as possible further directing to expedite the trial in STC No.628/1994. 14. In the second judgment cited above, in a similar case registered, when improper and biased investigation was conducted by the police on the complaint lodged by the petitioner therein under the SC & ST (PA) Act, the respondent police therein have filed the charge-sheet only under the provisions of IPC thus ignoring the provisions of the SC & ST (PA) Act, a learned single Judge of this court, while discrediting the manner in which the investigation was conducted by the respondent Police, would also hold the proceedings conducted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai as illegal. 15. In the third judgment delivered by this Court in a similar case mala fide registered against the petitioner therein, who is also a practising lady Advocate, this Court found that the same had been unreasonably and unlawfully foisted against the said Advocate without following the procedures established by law and had ultimately allowed the criminal original petition quashing the charge sheet besides directing the respondent/Assistant Commissioner of Police, Srirangam to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/= to the petitioner from out of his pocket. 16. The learned counsel would point out that the facts and circumstances arising out of the third judgment above are quite similar to that of the case in hand and would seek to apply the norms evolved therein in the present case also. 17. On the other hand, on the part of the learned Government Advocate on the criminal side appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6 in the presence of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing on behalf of the 8th respondent with no representation made on behalf of the 7th respondent, in spite of service of notice and printing her name in the list, would submit that the respondents have registered all the cases true to the facts and circumstances and at the right time particularly the case registered against the petitioner in the 6th respondent's crime No.427/2002 against the petitioner under the penal provisions of the SC & ST (PA) Act and that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement also, the complainant therein/the 7th respondent has spoken to the operative portion of the statement uttered on the part of the petitioner and therefore there is no doubt regarding the said occurrence having taken place at the place, time and in the manner alleged and there is no necessity on the part of this Court to cause its interference into the same and would ultimately pray to dismiss the above criminal original petition. 18. On the part of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI, he has nothing to say excepting to remark that it is not a case which could normally be dealt with and investigated into by the special establishment such as CBI, which is meant for different purposes and on specific directions issued by the Court and authorities concerned and therefore would feel that the authorities who registered the case themselves are the competent to investigate into so as to file a final report at the earliest and would pray to dismiss the above criminal original petition. 19. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 6 and 8 with no appearance made on the part of the 7th respondent in spite of notice, what could be assessed by this Court is that the petitioner, besides being an Advocate, has been doing yeoman service to the poor and needy particularly the women and those who are in the lowest wrung of the Society, getting herself associated with men and women of similar dimension of thinking and getting themselves involved in activities of such nature with the general honest thought and common good of the weaker sections of the Society, who are unable to bear with the onslaught of the privileged and plenty, initially having served as a nun of the Roman Catholic Church for a decade, side by side getting herself qualified as a Staff Nurse and serving in dispensaries run by the Services Congregation in the slums of Kolkata and later in Sivaganga District of Tamil Nadu and without being able to bear with the atrocities committed to the weaker sections and the women in the Society and with such fervent hopes to redress their grievances and relieve their pain, she gained access into the legal system and getting herself qualified as a Master Graduate in Political Science, also did her law and came out successful so as to get herself enrolled as a Lawyer in the year 1998. 20. A long list of the participation of the petitioner in her struggles and battles, particularly to curb the social evils to the weaker sex, the women, and to get justice to them in lending a helping hand, would be furnished of which her relentless efforts made in exposing the criminals particularly disguised in white collar and khaki uniforms in the gang rape on an innocent, helpless, poor girl Rita Mary which would be highlighted but would lament that her efforts though not appreciated by those in power in different capacities so as to go into the annals of history, she would feel contended in putting up a relentless legal battle not only to effectively prosecute those who indulged in the gang rape case which is being tried by the Fast Track Court of Tindivanam, herself being cited as a prosecution witness (P.W.46) in the said case, but also would feel happy in getting an award of compensation to the victim through this Court. 21. The petitioner would further allege that encouraged by the wide publicity given in print and electronic media, many girls, who were lured and rapped and betrayed, started approaching her for help and in her attempt, she had to approach the respondent police for interference in registering the cases and prosecuting those who were responsible for such calamities to occur to uncared innocent and defenceless creatures in the society, particularly respondents No.3 to 6, and one such case reported to her is that of one Selvi, a Scheduled Caste girl from Ethapattu village of Gingee Taluk who informed her that one Muthu of the same village, alluring that he would marry her, but with intent to cheat, committed rape on her resulting in the said Selvi becoming pregnant and the said Muthu not only declining to marry her but also disowning his responsibility towards the paternity of the child. 22. This case having been forwarded by the petitioner to the respondents No.4 to 6 on 23.9.2002 and in spite of having lodged a complaint since there was no response, again accompanied by the victim, she went to the police station on 15.10.2002 and insisted the police to register the case as a result of which the Avalurpet Police ultimately registered the case on 16.10.2002 in their crime No.423/2002 and the same having appeared in the local newspapers, on 18.10.2002 at about 7.30 a.m., a group of relatives of the accused Muthu came and ransacked the petitioner's house besides threatening her with dire consequences and the police having been summoned, further untoward incident got averted and on the same day, she lodged a complaint against nine named and 20 unnamed accused; that the 4th respondent having received the said complaint, forwarded the same to the Avalurpet Police Station on 19.10.2002 directing the Sub Inspector of Police to register the FIR and in spite of the said authority having received the complaint on 19.10.2002, he did not register the FIR. But all the respondents 3 to 6 conspiring with each other, have registered a false case against the petitioner under the penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on a complaint dated 20.10.2002 lodged by the 5th accused in the criminal case lodged by the petitioner who is the aunt of the accused in the rape case and the 7th respondent herein. 23. It is the definite case of the respondents 3 to 6 that the complaint of the 5th accused in this case viz. Deivayanai had been lodged only on 20.10.2002 but the 6th respondent/Sub Inspector giving colour, as though the said Deivayanai had lodged the complaint first and the complaint of the petitioner had reached him subsequent to that, had registered the case against the petitioner on the complaint of Deivayanai in his Cr.No.427/2002 and subsequently registered the case of the petitioner in Cr.No.428/2002, which is patently false and manipulated since glaringly it is seen that the complaint of the petitioner had been lodged on the same day of occurrence that was on 18.10.2002 with the 4th respondent, he having forwarded the same on 19.10.2002 and in spite of the same having been received by the 6th respondent on the same day, without immediately registering the