CJ’s bench stays order directing deduction of 2.5L from inspector

Allowing an intra-court appeal, the first bench comprising Chief Justice AP Sahi and Justice Senthikumar Ramamoorthy said, “We find that the award of compensation, even though a public law remedy, is not in ‘stricto sensu’ a criminal proceeding when the single judge proceeded to exercise such a jurisdiction. To this limited extent, we find the appeal to be maintainable as this is not exclusively a criminal proceeding or the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the single judge.” As per the case, M Kadek Dwi Ani Rasmini, a masseuse from Indonesia who was employed at a popular spa chain in Neelankarai, was detained on October 1, 2018. Inspector K Natarajan stated in theFIR filed that a flesh trade was being run in the guise of a massage parlour, and cited the two owners of the chain as accused. Also, five foreign nationals, including Kadek, were shown to be rescued from their custody. Later, Kadek was deportedto Indonesia.

However, she moved the Madras High Court through a power of attorney seeking compensation, including for denial of personal liberty, loss of personal reputation, mental agony and accompanying monetary losses of about Rs 10 lakh.

When the plea came before him, single judge Justice Anand Venkatesh described the incident as a horrific experience at the hands of the inspector. He granted a compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh to the woman, stating that such a move would not only reaffirm that the judicial system of this country was strong enough but would also restore the image of the country in the minds of the Indonesian woman. The inspector from whom the Rs 2.5 lakh was being detected in 50 monthly instalments contended that the single judge had failed to consider public law with objective reasonableness and only elaborated in length about the positive side of the Indonesian woman’s case.

Now, the first bench is all set to decide whether the direction issued for deduction was an exercise of jurisdiction in civil proceedings or if it was a consequence or continuation of quashing a criminal proceeding.