Madras High Court
G.Paramasivam vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Police on 2 July, 2015
Author: M.M.Sundresh
Bench: M.M.Sundresh
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.07.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Crl.O.P.(MD)NO. 1748 of 2013 & M.P(MD)Nos. 1 & 2 of 2013 1.G.Paramasivam 2.Karthick aliasKarthikeyan ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law & Order, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai. 3.The Inspector of Police, K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai. ...Respondents/Respondents 4.G.V.Nagarajan ... 4th Respondent/De-facto complainant 5.Velladurai Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. ... 5th Respondent/Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.250 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, and quash the same as illegal. !For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates. For Respondents : Mrs.S.Prabha Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R3 : Mr.M.Ponniah for R4 : No appearance for R5 :ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.250 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, and quash the same as illegal.
2. The petitioners are father and son. The first petitioner was aged about 77 years at the time of filing this petition. The fourth respondent is none other than the brother's son of the first petitioner. The fifth respondent was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police at the relevant point of time, against whom, the complaint was given alleging that he was interfering with the affairs of the temple.
3. A dispute arose within the family, namely, the petitioners on one hand and the fourth respondent on the other hand regarding the management of the temple and by judgment and decree in A.S.No.12 of 2001 dated 21.02.2011, it was finally resolved in favour of the petitioners. Inter se dispute was taken to the civil Court and as on today, the judgment and decree of the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court stand in favour of the petitioners and as against the fourth respondent.
4. The fourth respondent gave a complaint to the HR & CE authorities after having lost in seeking for appointment of a fit person. The appointment has been challenged before this Court successfully. An appeal has been preferred by the Department as against the order passed in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners gave a complaint to the Commissioner of Police alleging that the fifth respondent is aiding and abetting the fourth respondent by interfering with the affairs of the temple. An enquiry was called for, on 22.07.2012 and in the enquiry, the fourth respondent was made to depose. In his deposition, the fourth respondent has made a detailed statement. He also stated about the incident that happened on 18.07.2012 and thereafter, a complaint has been given on 23.07.2012 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC alleging that on 18.07.2012, the petitioners have barged into the house of the de-facto complainant and threatened to do away with him. A case was registered and the proceedings were filed on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Madurai. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the entire complaint is false and that there is absolutely no reason as to why the fourth respondent has not whispered anything about the alleged occurrence in his statement before the Deputy Commissioner of Police. There is no explanation for the huge delay. If the fourth respondent was diligent enough to agitate his case before the civil Court, it is not clear as to why he awaited for more than four days to complain about the alleged occurrence. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC is concerned, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that mere threat would not attract the said Section.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that there are sufficient materials available on record with respect to the charges levelled. The relevant materials cannot be gone into by this Court by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. Basing reliance upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale -vs- State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2009 (2) CTC 163, the learned Counsel submitted that this is not a matter which can be decided under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. The facts as narrated above are not in dispute. There is absolutely no explanation on the part of the fourth respondent in giving a delayed complaint. Law is quite clear that mere delay alone cannot be a ground. However. considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above, this Court is of the view that the alleged delay would become factual. Admittedly, the fourth respondent has not whispered anything before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, though other things happened on the day. The fact that there was an enquiry against the fifth respondent, is also not in dispute.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is improbable that the alleged occurrence would have happened on a day, particularly, in view of the inter se dispute between the parties.
9. Coming to the alleged offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C., is concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, a mere threat per se would not attract the said provision. The allegation is that the petitioners went to the house of the fourth respondent and threatened orally by showing their hands. A mere outburst would not attract Section 506(ii)IPC.
10. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has to be applied to the facts of the each case. In the light of the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for quashing the proceedings and accordingly, quashed.
11. Accordingly, this petition is ordered. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law & Order, Madurai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police, K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai.
5.Velladurai Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.
6.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..