Skip to content


Illaya Raja Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Chennai and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberH.C.P.No. 521 of 2016
Judge
AppellantIllaya Raja
RespondentGovernment of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Chennai and Another
Excerpt:
.....h-5 new washermenpet police station, cr.no.873 of 2015, under sections 406 and 420 of the indian penal code. 2. central crime branch, cr.no.163 of 2015, under sections 406, 420 read with section 34 of the indian penal code. 3. further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 05.02.2016, one karikalan, son of masilamani, has lodged a complaint against the detenue in central crime branch, greater chennai police, and the same has been registered in crime no.29 of 2016, under sections 406 and 506(i) read with section 34 of the indian penal code and ultimately, requested the detaining authority to invoke act 14 of 1982 against the detenue. 4. the detaining authority, after considering the nature of offences alleged to have been committed by the detenue, has derived subjective satisfaction to.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention order passed in No.172/BCCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 22.02.2016, on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of petitioner's mother Vijayalakshmi, wife of N.Mohan, aged about 38 years, now confined in Special Prison for Woman, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set her at liberty.)

A. Selvam, J.

1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to detention order, dated 22.02.2016, passed in Memo No.172/BCDFGISSSV/2016, by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as the second respondent herein, against the detenue, by name Vijayalakshmi, wife of Mohan and quash the same.

2. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Greater Chennai Police, as sponsoring authority, has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is averred that the detenue has involved in the following adverse cases:

1. H-5 New Washermenpet Police Station, Cr.No.873 of 2015, under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Central Crime Branch, Cr.No.163 of 2015, under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 05.02.2016, one Karikalan, son of Masilamani, has lodged a complaint against the detenue in Central Crime Branch, Greater Chennai Police, and the same has been registered in Crime No.29 of 2016, under Sections 406 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenue.

4. The detaining authority, after considering the nature of offences alleged to have been committed by the detenue, has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenue is a habitual offender and ultimately branded her as a 'Goonda' by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the son of the detenue, as petitioner.

5. On the side of the respondents, a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended interalia to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and the detaining authority, after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents submitted by the sponsoring authority, has rightly branded the detenue as "Goonda", by way of passing the impugned detention order and therefore, the same is not liable to be quashed and altogether, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has attacked the detention order on the following grounds:

(1) As per Act 14 of 1982, the offences alleged to have been committed by the detenue would not come within the definition of 'Goonda' and therefore, the detaining authority, without considering the nature of offences alleged to have been committed by the detenue, has erroneously branded the detenue as 'Goonda', by way of passing the impugned detention order and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

(2) The detaining authority has not properly considered the similar case particulars and therefore, it shows that the detaining authority, without applying his mind properly, has passed the impugned detention order and on that ground also, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents has contended that the detenue is in the habit of collecting huge money on various occasions, from various persons and under the said circumstances, the two adverse cases are pending against her and even in ground case also, it has been specifically alleged to the effect that the detenue has collected a huge amount from various persons and the detaining authority, after considering the nature of offences alleged to have been committed by the detenue and also after considering the materials placed before him, has rightly invoked Act 14 of 1982 against the detenue by way of passing impugned detention order and therefore, the impugned detention order does not call for any interference.

8. It is an admitted fact that against the detenue, two adverse cases are pending. In two adverse cases, the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are mentioned.

9. It is seen from the records that on 5.2.2016, one Karikalan, son of Masilamani, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint against the detenue in Central Crime Branch, Greater Chennai and the same has been registered in Crime No.29 of 2016 , under Sections 406 and 420, along with other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is quite clear that the detenue is in the habit of committing crimes one after another.

10. Even in the detention order it has been clearly mentioned regarding the details of amounts collected by the detenue from various persons.

11. The first and foremost attack made on the side of the petitioner is that on the basis of offences alleged to have been committed by the detenue, Act 14 of 1982 is not attracted.

12. In fact, this Court has perused the real meaning of 'Goonda', wherein it has been specifically stated that if any offence or offences, mentioned in Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, are committed, the same would come within the purview of Act 14 of 1982.

13. In the instant case, admittedly, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code would come within the Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, it is needless to say that the detaining authority has rightly invoked Act 14 of 1982, on the basis of the offences alleged to have been committed by the detenue.

14. Now the Court has to look into the second ground urged on the side of the detenue.

15. On the basis of the second ground urged on the side of the petitioner, this Court has perused similar case particulars, wherein also offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are involved. Considering the fact that even similar case also very same offences are available, this Court is of the view that the detaining authority has rightly applied his mind for passing the impugned detention order. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the contentions put forth on the side of the petitioner cannot be accepted and altogether, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

In fine, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //