Chennai: Holding that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands, the Madras high court has dismissed a petition, which sought a direction to the state government to initiate disciplinary action against an inspector of police, Tiruttani, by way of removing him from service, for allegedly refusing to register his complaint against a tea shop owner, who refused to accept 10 Rupee coin for the coffee he consumed and detained him illegally for three hours.
Dismissing the petition filed by E. Palani, Justice T. Raja said, “It is well settled legal position that any one should come to the court with clean hands. In the present case, it is clear from the documents filed in support of the petition that the petitioner has not come to this court with clean hands. Therefore, the petition fails and same is dismissed”.
Petitioner appearing as party in person submitted that while he went to Tirupati-Tirumalai for worship on September 7, 2017, after completing his pilgrimage, he returned to Tiruttani on September 9, 2017. On the next day, again he along with his family members went to Lord Muruga Temple at Tiruttani, after the darshan went to a tea and snacks shop and after purchasing 3 cups of coffee, the shop owner refused to accept the Rs 10 coin. He explained that the coin was supplied by the Government of India through RBI and for which, the owner replied that since the traders in Tiruttani bus stand have passed a resolution not to accept the 10 Rupee coin. Ultimately, after some altercation, he went to the Tiruttani police station and lodged a complaint. But inspector of police Vinayagam supported the owner and refused to receive the complaint. Above all, he was detained illegally for about 3 to 4 hours and finally at the intervention of two advocates, he was released, he alleged.
The judge said the petitioner has given two complaints. In none of the complaints, he has made any mention about his illegal detention in the Thiruthani police station. Moreover, nowhere he has mentioned the intervention of the two of his counsel, for his release from illegal detention. That shows that the petitioner has come to this court with an afterthought. Therefore, this court was unable to entertain this petition, the judge added.
