Detention order cannot be resorted to in every murder case: HC

Madurai: A detention order can never be a substitute to handle a situation which can be dealt with under the normal criminal law, Madras high court observed while quashing the detention order passed against a man over a murder case involving a money dispute in Trichy district.The court was hearing a petition filed by the wife of M Rajeshkumar, who is detained at the Trichy Central Prison, seeking to quash the detention order passed under the Goondas Act by Thanjavur district collector against her husband. The petitioner stated that the order was passed based on a solitary case of murder.The additional public prosecutor submitted that the manner in which the murder took place in broad daylight certainly warranted the passing of a detention order. Even in a solitary case, if the facts so warrant, a detention order can be passed, considering the fact that such activity will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public peace.A division bench of justice N Anand Venkatesh and justice P Dhanabal observed that even in a solitary case, a detention order can be passed if that solitary case by itself is of such a nature which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public peace. However, such a detention order cannot be resorted to in each and every case involving murder. There must be something more than the offence of murder committed to justify the passing of a detention order.In the present case, there was a money dispute between the parties which led to the alleged commission of murder. This incident by itself did not warrant the passing of a detention order, since it could have been dealt with under the normal criminal law that is available. "For every case of murder, the authorities cannot resort to passing detention orders under Act 14 of 1982 (Goondas Act)," the judges observed and set aside the detention order passed against Rajeshkumar and ordered him to be released forthwith.The judges observed that they were inclined to impose costs in the present case, since they found that a detention order was not warranted. However, the additional public prosecutor submitted that he will immediately address this issue to the govt and ensure that detention orders are not passed in a mechanical fashion in all cases involving a solitary incident and that the authorities will be careful while passing such orders in future. The judges directed that such instructions be issued immediately and observed that if the court finds any other case in future involving a solitary case which could be dealt with under the normal criminal law and where a detention order has been passed, it will be forced to interfere with the same and impose costs.