B. Bharathi vs The Home Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioner, who is the father of a girl, who was allegedly subjected to dowry harassment, domestic violence, etc., has come up with the above writ petition, seeking two sets of reliefs namely (a) to call for the records relating to the petitions filed by his son-in-law as well as his parents and to quash the anticipatory bail orders that they obtained from the Principal Sessions Court; and (b) to direct the Government of Tamilnadu to pay compensation of Rs. 5 Crores, for the sufferings undergone by the petitioner and his daughter.

It appears that the petitioner''s daughter by name Abirami was given in marriage to one Mr. Arunkumar, an Engineer by qualification. The marriage was celebrated at Chennai on 26.5.1999. After the marriage, the couple lived in Chennai till April 2001. Thereafter, they left for London. In November 2001, the couple returned to India and stayed here for three weeks. Again, they left for London. After three years, they returned in February 2004. It appears that the petitioner''s daughter had a series of miscarriages. In November 2007, the son-in-law of the petitioner left Abirami at London and came back to India. The daughter of the petitioner returned in May 2008.

Alleging domestic violence, dowry harassment and physical and mental cruelty, the petitioner and his daughter lodged a series of complaints. The petitioner first lodged a complaint on 27.12.2007 with the All Women Police Station, Anna Nagar. The petitioner''s daughter lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police on 23.6.2008.

Upon coming to know of the complaints, the parents and the sister of the petitioner''s son-in-law moved a petition for anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P. No. 6436 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai. The Principal Sessions Court passed an order on 1.7.2008, directing the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai to release them on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender on or before 15.7.2008.

Subsequently, the petitioner''s son-in-law also filed Crl.M.P. No. 6677 of 2008 for anticipatory bail. In that petition, the petitioner''s daughter filed an application for intervention. By an order dated 22.8.2008, the petitioner''s son-in-law was granted anticipatory bail by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai.

It appears that after their release on anticipatory bail, the parents and the sister of the petitioner''s son-in-law did not appear for an enquiry before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Dowry Harassment Cell. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner of Police appears to have requested the Public Prosecutor to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. On the said request, the then Additional Public Prosecutor seems to have informed the Assistant Commissioner of Police that he had to address the Government for filing a petition for cancellation of bail. Interestingly, he also seems to have stated that in his opinion, the bail, once granted, cannot be cancelled on the ground that the accused are not complying with the conditions. Therefore, after obtaining information under the Right to Information Act about various aspects of the case, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

Since the petitioner sought two types of prayers, one for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted on 1.7.2008 and 22.8.2008, and another for compensation, the Registry had a doubt as to the maintainability of the writ petition. Hence, the case was posted for orders as to the maintainability before the M. Sathyanarayanan, J. Before the learned Judge, the petitioner made an endorsement on 23.7.2014 that he is not pressing for the first prayer. The endorsement made by the petitioner is as follows :

"I give up the first portion of my prayer i.e. cancellation of anticipatory bail and I have the liberty to approach the appropriate court for cancellation of anticipatory bail."

In view of the above endorsement, the learned Judge directed the office on 23.7.2014 to number the writ petition. Thereafter, the writ petition got posted again before me under the same caption. Hence, I passed an order on 14.8.2014 directing the office to number the writ petition and post for admission. Subsequently, the writ petition was numbered and posted for admission on 19.8.2014.

I have heard Mr. B. Bharathi-the petitioner appearing in person.

The prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition is for a direction to the State of Tamilnadu to grant compensation to him in a sum of Rs. 5 Crores for the sufferings undergone by his daughter, on account of the inept handling of the case by the prosecution.

The basis for the petitioner claiming compensation is that the then State Public Prosecutor did not resist the anticipatory bail applications properly and did not advise the Police Officials of the Anti Dowry Cell. According to the petitioner, no counter was filed by the State Public Prosecutor. The petitioner contends that by his failure to act impartially and by stating that he had no serious objections to the grant of anticipatory bail, the State Public Prosecutor caused serious damage and prejudice to the petitioner''s daughter. According to the petitioner, the State Public Prosecutor colluded with the accused and their lawyers and that therefore, the victim suffered. The petitioner has also contended that an investigation is required to enquire into the manner, in which, the then City Public Prosecutor, the State Public Prosecutor, the Police Officials and the then Principal Sessions Judge as well as the lawyers of the accused acted in a collusive manner.

But, I think that the petition of the writ petitioner is completely misdirected. In the perception of the petitioner, everything went wrong in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail to his son-in-law and to the parents and the sister of his son-in-law.

The petitioner has failed to take note of the fact that his own daughter filed an application for intervention in the anticipatory bail petition of his son-in-law. The name of the counsel for the petitioner''s daughter is also mentioned in the anticipatory bail order passed by the Principal Sessions Court.

The petitioner has not mentioned as to what happened to the criminal complaints. I do not know whether the investigation is complete and the charge sheet filed. In matrimonial cases, many Law Officers of the State and many Judicial Officers genuinely feel that the arrest and detention immediately upon the lodging of the complaint, may aggravate the wounds and make it impossible later on for the parties to reconcile. Therefore, it is not possible to think that every decision taken by a Public Prosecutor or a Judge, is motivated. It is not possible by the very nature of the duties discharged by the Public Prosecutors and the Judicial Officers to satisfy both the victims and the accused. Our Criminal Jurisprudence presumes every person to be innocent until the guilt is established. The petitioner''s daughter, who filed an application for intervention, could have made use of the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482. After having allowed things to drift away, I do not think it is possible for the petitioner to seek compensation on the ground that the Police, the Public Prosecutor and the Principal Sessions Court failed in their duty to render justice to the victim.

In Brij Nandan Jaiswal Vs. Munna @ Munna Jaiswal and Another, , the Supreme Court pointed out that it is always open to the complainant to question the order granting bail, if the order had not been validly passed. The Supreme Court held that a complainant could question the merits of the order granting bail, without waiting for a violation of the conditions. Therefore, the petitioner or his daughter could have actually taken recourse for cancellation of bail. But, they did not do so. Therefore, today the petitioner cannot allege, without questioning the correctness of the order granting anticipatory bail, that the anticipatory bail was granted in collusion and that therefore, he should be compensated.

In view of the above, I find no reason to entertain the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the above MPs are also dismissed.