The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to hold an enquiry to Mr.Lakshmanan, Inspector of Police and Marappan, Sub Inspector of Police, Pappireddipatti Police station, Dharmapuri district on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner to the respondents and higherups dated .09.2011 in accordance with law.
VINOD K.SHARMA, J.
O R D E R
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to hold enquiry against Mr.Lakshmanan, Inspector of Police, and Mr.Marappan, Sub Inspector of Police, Pappireddipatti Police station, Dharmapuri district in view of the representation submitted by the petitioner.
2 In support of the writ petition, it is pleaded as under:
"1 I submit that I am a house wife and is hailing from Kuruvar S.C.Community and myself and my sister Amsa were subjected to torture in a barbaric manner by the Inspector of Police Mr.Lakshmanan Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Marappan, Pappireddipatti under the following circumstances.
2 I submit that myself and my sister Amsa were taken into custody illegally on 13.01.2011 early morning at 3.00 a.m. Along with my son and my sister's husband in a jeep while we were in sound sleep. The said policemen uttered the words "Kura Thevadia" and thus committed an offence under under S.C. & S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act. Further, both of us were detained illegally and tortured in a most barbaric manner, outraging only modesty. The said Lakshmanan, Inspector of Police and Mr.Marappan, Sub Inspector of Police further strapped off over cloths and inserted chilly powder on our private parts and we suffered untold sufferings in the hands of the said inhuman policemen. After two days illegal detention, we were remanded to judicial custody. Further, we were threatened that we should not divulge the same to the learned Magistrate. The policemen produced myself and my sister before the Judicial Magistrate during the night hours.
3 I submit that against the torture inhuman act, the said policemen is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4 I submit that I sent a representation on .09.2011 before the respondents and higherups but of no avail.
5 I submit that the act of the respondents in not considering the representation dated .09.2011 is illegal under the following circumstances.
(i) The act of the respondents is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) The act of the respondents is violative of principle of SC & ST prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
6 I submit that I left with no other remedy except to invoke this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to hold an enquiry to Mr.Lakshmanan, Inspector of Police and Marappan, Sub Inspector of Police, pappireddipatty Police station, Dharmapuri district on the basis of the representation submitted before the respondents and higherups dated .09.2011 in accordance with law."
3 The reading of the averments made herein shows that the petitioner has levelled allegations disclosing the commission of offence against the respondents No.3 & 4. The averments made in the affidavit cannot be accepted on the face value as it needs to be proved by leading evidence.
4 It is well settled law that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot go into the disputed question of fact and it cannot be believed that the allegations levelled can be admitted by the respondents. The remedy of the petitioner is to file either F.I.R. in the competent Court or to file criminal complaint with the Magistrate wherein evidence can be recorded.
5 The petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction to pressurise the respondents No.1 & 2 to take action against the police officials on unproved allegations.
6 In support of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehboob Batcha and others vs. State rep. By Superintendent of Police [(2011)7 SCC 45]. This judgment cannot advance the case of the petitioner as the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in criminal appeal where the Court on appreciation of evidence has held the police personnel guilty. The judgment nowhere lays down that the petitioner on the allegations as levelled in this writ petition, can invoke the writ jurisdiction to direct the holding of enquiry.
7 As already observed above, the remedy of the petitioner is to lodge criminal complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law.
8 The writ petition is being totally misconceived is ordered to be dismissed, but no order as to costs.
9 Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.