Madras High Court
Suhasini Maniratnam vs D.Balachandran on 29 April, 2010
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.04.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.Nos.33173, 33174, 33369, 33370, 33797, 34055, 34538 of 2005 & 4110 of 2006 and Crl.M.P.Nos.9397, 9395, 9466, 9468, 9469, 9575, 9699, 9919 of 2005 & 1020 of 2006 Suhasini Maniratnam .. Petitioner in all Crl.O.Ps., Vs. 1.D.Balachandran .. Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.33173 of 2005 2.R.Soundarrajan .. Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.33174 of 2005 3.P.R.A.Muthuswamy District Convenor Manida Urimai Kalagam Tiruchengode .. Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.33369 of 2005 4.M.Thilagavathi .. Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.33370 of 2005 5.V.G.Karthikeyan .. Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.33797 of 2005 6.Amirthavalli .. Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.34055 of 2005 7.Shanthi .. Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.34538 of 2005 8.J.Janaki Raman .. Respondent in Crl.O.P.No.4110 of 2006 Prayer: (Crl.O.P.No.33173 of 2005) Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records and quash the summons dated 16.11.2005 issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode in C.C.No.1107 of 2005. Prayer: (Crl.O.P.No.33174 of 2005) Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records and quash the summons dated 21.11.2005 issued by the Court of District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore, in C.C.No.644 of 2005. Prayer: (Crl.O.P.No.33369 of 2005) Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the Complaint and records in C.C.No.648 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode and quash the same. Prayer: (Crl.O.P.No.33370 of 2005) Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the Complaint and records in C.C.No.649 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode and quash the same. Prayer: (Crl.O.P.No.33797 of 2005) Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No.293 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Vandavasi and quash the same. Prayer: (Crl.O.P.No.34055 of 2005) Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records and quash the summons dated 29.11.2005 issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur in C.C.No.462 of 2005. Prayer: (Crl.O.P.No.34538 of 2005) Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records and quash the summons dated 07.12.2005 issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvannamalai in C.C.No.303 of 2005. Prayer: (Crl.O.P.No.4110 of 2006) Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records and quash the summons dated 30.01.2006 issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Walajapet in C.C.No.28 of 2006. For Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General, for Mr.C.Seethapathy. For Respondents : Mr.Pugazanthi (Crl.O.P.No.33174/2005) Mr.N.Manokaran (Crl.O.P.No.33369/2005) Mr.Jothimanian (Crl.O.P.No.34055/2005) Mr.C.D.Johnson (Crl.O.P.No.34538/2005) Legal Aid C O M M O N O R D E R
The petitioner, who has been implicated for the alleged offences under Sections 500, 504, 505(ii), 294(b) and 499 of I.P.C. has come forward with these petitions, seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings in the following cases:
1. Crl.O.P.No.33173 of 2005 against C.C.No.1107 of 2005, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode,
2. Crl.O.P.No.33369 of 2005 against C.C.No.648 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode,
3. Crl.O.P.No.33797 of 2005 against C.C.No.293 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Vandavasi,
4. Crl.O.P.No.33370 of 2005 against C.C.No.649 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode,
5. Crl.O.P.No.33174 of 2005 against C.C.No.644 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore District,
6. Crl.O.P.No.34055 of 2005 against C.C.No.462 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur,
7. Crl.O.P.No.34538 of 2005 against C.C.No.303 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvannamalai,
8. Crl.O.P.No.4110 of 2006 against C.C.No.28 of 2006, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Walajapet in C.C.No.28 of 2006,
2.The private complaint filed against her by the respondents seeking to punish her for alleged offences under Sections 500, 504 and 505(ii) of the I.P.C. has been taken cognizance of by the learned Judges of the above mentioned Courts, hereinafter referred to as "Trial Courts" and summons has been issued to her seeking for her personal appearance before the Trial Court. The ground on which the impugned summon is sought to be quashed is that it is in gross violation of Section 204 Cr.P.C. as the copy of the complaint and the list of witnesses were not enclosed with the summons for appearance.
3.The circumstances under which the above petition has come to be preferred may be briefly narrated as under:
"3.The petitioner herein is preferring this petition seeking to quash a summon dated 07.12.2005 in C.C.No.303 of 2005 issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvanamalai, on the basis of a private complaint filed by the respondent herein before the said court seeking to punish this petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 500, 504 and 505(ii) of the I.P.C. The above complaint has been taken cognizance of by the learned Judge (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") and summons has been issued to this petitioner seeking for her personal appearance before the Trial Court on 09.01.2006. The ground on which the impugned summon is sought to be quashed is that in gross violation of Sec.204 Cr.P.C, a copy of the Complaint and the list of witnesses were not enclosed with the Summons for appearance.
4.Aggrieved by the above action of the Trial Court in taking cognizance of the private complaint and issuance of the summons as aforesaid, the petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5.The circumstances under which the above petition has come to be preferred may be briefly narrated as under:
The petitioner herein was born in a traditional Tamil family in the Village of Paramakkudi in Tamil Nadu.
The petitioner completed her entire elementary education in Tamil medium and thereafter did her further studies in Film Technology hailing as she does from a family of renowned cinema artists. After completing her education, the petitioner herein joined the film industry as a technician and later as an actress and in the last 25 years of her association, she has been involved as a technician, producer, director and more importantly as a leading actress in over 185 films in Tamil as well as in other languages such as Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam. The petitioner can proudly state that she has the unique distinction of being part of the only father and daughter combination to win the coveted National Award for best acting, the petitioner for the Tamil Film Sindhu Bhairavi and her father Shri.Charuhasan (renowned actor, lawyer and social activist) for the Kannada Film 'Taparanna Kathe'. The petitioner's uncle is also a renowned Indian and Tamil cinema hero Padmashri Kamal Hassan.
The petitioner is constrained to state all the above facts which are otherwise irrelevant in a quash petition to demonstrate her and her family's deep rooted involvement and attachment in Tamil culture and Tamil tradition since that is something integral to this case.
6.One of the petitioner's colleagues in the film industry by name Ms.Khushboo is alleged to have given an interview in September 2005 to a nationally renowned magazine India Today (Tamil Edition). The said interview was to elicit her response to an information poll conducted on certain matters of present day youth and sex and the dangers of AIDS. She is also attributed to have made statements in the said interview inter alia on present day girls and virginity, allegedly suggesting that in present society, bridegrooms should be liberated from ideas of their brides being virgins. Her actual statement was apparently to caution youth and guard against pregnancy, venereal disease and AIDS; but the same was quoted out of context while being reported in other newspapers and other media.
7.The petitioner herein does not propose to embark upon on any defence or justification of any statement of Ms.Khusbhoo though she has no contrary views to express. Several self styled "guardians" of Tamil Culture" spear-headed by a few opportunist so called "political parties" started not only voicing vehement dissent against Ms.Khushboo but also went to the indecent extent of burning her effigies, demonstrating in front of her residence, parading donkeys (naming them Khushbhoo) and even threatened to hurl cow dung on her, thereby making her seek for police protection for her very safety. Few political parties are alleged to have involved themselves in this demonstration. Some of them even went to the extent of filing private complaints against her alleging various offences (similar to the present case) and several Magistrates have taken cognizance of those complaints under Section 200 Cr.P.C. And issued summons to her to appear, including in one case when a non-bailable warrant was issued. Over 15 cases have been filed against her through the length and breadth of Tamil Nadu compelling her to move this Hon'ble Court to quash such complaints. In various criminal original petitions filed by her both at Chennai as well as in the Bench at Madurai, this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to admit all those quash petitions and further proceedings in every one of the criminal cases has been stayed while also dispensing with her personal appearance.
8.During much of the period of controversy involving Ms.Khushbhoo's instance, this petitioner was not in station though she had expressed her sympathy and support to her friend and colleague. The petitioner recently attended the inaugural function of the International Film Festival held at the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce at Chennai on 09.11.2005. The petitioner herein was one of the speakers as was Ms.Khushbhoo. This petitioner is alleged to have spoken in her address inter alia expressing her solidarity and support to Ms.Khushbhoo. The petitioner is further alleged to have expressed her unhappiness that her friend's statement made in the context of prevention of AIDS and AIDS awareness have been misread and misinterpreted. The petitioner is also alleged to have expressed her apology to Ms.Khushbhoo for the insults meted out to her on behalf of all Tamils. This speech and it's alleged contents have been reported in several newspapers.
9.The petitioner respectfully states that it was an impromptu address and not a prepared speech but more a dialogue with her friend who was also in the dais. There were less than 50 people present in the auditorium including leading film personalities and the attendance to the function was purely by invitation. Other than the said press report there is nothing to show the actual contents of her address or dialogue. At any event the petitioner bonafide believes that her above address was a personal expression of support to her friend and colleague as well as her free expression of thought on a matter of public debate. No member of the audience present on that day has filed any complaint or even expressed any dissenting opinion.
10.While large sections of the public have openly come forward and expressed their happiness and support over the reports of the above expression of Ms.Khushbhoo, the same group of self styled "guardians of Tamil culture" who had earlier tormented Ms.Khushbhoo immediately started targeting this petitioner as well. This handful of narrow minded bigoted persons started to indulge in abuse and insults on this petitioner and as perpetrated on Ms.Khushbhoo, also started staging small demonstrations, burning of effigies etc., with further threats of continuous harassment.
11.The petitioner has now received summons from the Trial Court in the complaint filed by the respondent herein claiming to be aggrieved by the petitioner's address made on 09.11.2005. The petitioner understands now from articles in newspapers that several such similar criminal cases have also been filed against her in various parts of the State by other self proclaimed guardians of "Tamil Culture". The petitioner herein has already received summons from the following Courts:
i) District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil,
ii) Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode,
iii) Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchengode, (2 cases),
iv) Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Tiruppur (impugned summon),
v) Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvannamalai, The petitioner further understands that cases have also been filed in Chennai and other parts of Tamil Nadu; but no summons have been received as yet.
12.The petitioner may relevantly state here that contrary to the mandatory provisions contained in Sec.204(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, none of the summons received by her, including the impugned summons, enclosed either the list of witnesses or a certified copy of the complaint. The petitioner having been aggrieved by the Criminal Court taking cognizance of such private complaints and issuing summons including the present case is consequently constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court with the present petition seeking to quash all the summons proceedings dated 16.11.2005 issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode, in C.C.No.1107 of 2005; dated 21.11.2005 issued by the Court of District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore, in C.C.No.644 of 2005; C.C.No.648 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode; C.C.No.649 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode; C.C.No.293 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Vandavasi; dated 29.11.2005, issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur, in C.C.No.462 of 2005; dated 07.12.2005 issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvannamalai in C.C.No.303 of 2005 and dated 30.01.2006 issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Walajapet in C.C.No.28 of 2006."
4.The learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioner has contended the issue on the following Grounds:
a)In cases of private complaints of an alleged crime under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., after following the procedure contemplated by Section 201 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., the Court shall either dismiss the complaint after recording reasons under Sections 203 or in case of taking cognizance of the matter, issue process under Section 204. In the instant case, the Trial Court having thought fit to take cognizance, the provisions of Section 204(3) ought to have been followed.
b)The provision requiring the summons to be accompanied along with a copy of complaint as well as the list of witnesses is not a matter of procedure but a substantive right of the accused to know what he or she is facing in a private complaint.
c)The complete violation of all these mandatory provisions by all the trial courts is unfortunate despite judicial precedents on the subject. In the instant case the summons was served to the petitioner without enclosing a complaint copy.
d)The petitioner has a fundamental right to life and liberty and also the remedy available under law to challenge a complaint inter alia through criminal quash proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C.
e)In the instant case, by the time the trial court has taken cognizance of this complaint, it was already well known throughout Tamil Nadu that all the criminal proceedings arising out of complaints filed against Ms.Kushboo have already been stayed by this Hon'ble Court. Indeed, it was even reported that some criminal courts have resorted to section 203 Cr.P.C. And dismissed the complaint as not making out a criminal case. The impugned summons is not only for taking cognizance for the matter which clearly does not disclose an offence, but more importantly has violated the petitioner's right by not enclosing the relevant documents.
The petitioner is hence being compelled to respond to a summon without being aware of the nature of the complaint made against her. Consequently, the principles of natural justice are violated.
f)The impugned summons dated 16.11.2005 issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode, in C.C.No.1107 of 2005; dated 21.11.2005 issued by the Court of District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore, in C.C.No.644 of 2005; C.C.No.648 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode; C.C.No.649 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode; C.C.No.293 of 2005, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Vandavasi; dated 29.11.2005, issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur, in C.C.No.462 of 2005; dated 07.12.2005 issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvannamalai in C.C.No.303 of 2005 and dated 30.01.2006 issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Walajapet in C.C.No.28 of 2006 deserves to be quashed and this Hon'ble Court has inherent powers as well as constitutional powers to direct the concerned Courts to furnish copies of the complaints along with any summons issued for her appearance.
5.The learned counsel had also submitted written submission, wherein he had cited the case laws, which reads as follows:
"12.Legal contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner for quashing both the summons and the complaints:
(A)Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction:
As per the complaint, the alleged defamatory statements/inflammatory statements are stated to have been made in a meeting at Chennai addressing a small audience. This is the cause of action. Newspapers carrying their own versions of the said speech will not constitute a criminal cause of action, wherever the said publication is read by a party. This more so when the case of criminal defamation is not filed against the newspaper but only against a third party whose alleged speech is merely reported.
If every person reading a newspaper is entitled to maintain an action for defamation in cases of this nature wherever they reside, no person about whom anything is written in newspaper as attributing them with any statement can be safe from vexatious criminal prosecution.
Cause of action as disclosed by the complaint ex-facie has taken place at Chennai and consequently no criminal court other than the court of competent territorial jurisdiction at Chennai can take cognizance of the complaint as per Section 177 of the Cr.P.C.
(B)No locus standi for the Complainant:
The allegation in the complaint is that Tamil women and Tamil culture have been defamed and hence action under Sections 499 and 500 IPC is to be taken. The so-called defamation of Tamil women and Tamil culture is of an indefinite body of persons and not against any individual. Consequently, no person can prosecute the complaint claiming to be a member of that indefinite body. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1972) 2 SCC Page 680 = AIR 1972 SC 2609 in the case of G.Narasimhan and others Vs. T.V.Chokkappa. The Apex Court used the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the proceedings for defamation instituted by one individual claiming defamation of a body of persons. The Apex Court held that, not being a determinate body an individual complaint is not maintainable.
Since the alleged defamation is of an indeterminable body, the criminal courts ought not to have been entertained the private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and ought to have relegated the matter for investigation by police before taking cognizance and issuing summons.
The alleged defamation being of a generic nature and the allegation is that of such an alleged statement having caused inducement of public disorder (Section 504) with no allegation in the complaint of any such public disorder having taken place, it was another reason for the criminal court to have desisted from taking cognizance and instead directing the police to investigate. If such police investigation revealed a prima facie commission of the offence, thereafter the criminal court could have taken cognizance and issued summons. This would give the proper check and act as a filter against vexatious private complaints against public personalities.
(C)Complaint based on hearsay:
The entire complaint is based on the report carried out in newspapers regarding an alleged speech said to have been made by the petitioner in a private gathering inside a building and not a public meeting. Without making the Editor and the Publisher as a co-accused and without naming the Correspondent as a witness, the entire complaint is only hearsay and hence the same deserves to be quashed. This is another compelling reason why the criminal court ought not to have taken cognizance of the private complaint but instead directed police investigation into the matter. Only on receipt of the police investigation report, can the criminal court ascertain whether such an address took place, and if so, determine the true contents of the same and then come to a conclusion whether prima facie anything defamatory as against the complaint has been made out or not. In the absence of these procedures, the petitioner's fundamental right is infringed.
(D)Merits:
Finally, ex facie, the statement attributed to the petitioner is only a statement sympathizing with the condition of a colleague and a friend (Ms.Khushbhoo) and the publication does not even reveal anything more either supporting or otherwise against whatever statements are attributed to Ms.Khushbhoo. Consequently, the question of petitioner's statement offending Tamil culture and Tamil sentiments is only a case of moral or cultural policing and is consequently infringing the petitioner's fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 1 (a).
The statement made by the petitioner is not inherently promiscuous or inciting the public but is only an expression of opinion. In a plural society, tolerance of opinion is fundamental to the Rule of Law. Citizens such as the petitioner cannot live in fear of criminal recrimination from any part of India for expressing opinions on any matter of public debate or even a private opinion on a topic of general issue for fear of wounding sentiments of any indefinite or indeterminate group of persons.
(E)Power under Section 482.
The complaint not disclosing an act either under the trial court's territorial jurisdiction or with any locus standi of the complainants or making out any prima facie case under Sections 499, 500 and 504, no purpose would be served by relegating the petitioner to face a long and arduous trial. Consequently this Hon'ble Court has inherent powers under Section 482 to quash the complaint by exercising its power of judicial review whether it is filed under Section 482 or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Please refer AIR 1998 SC 128. The present case is neither vindicative of any person's right nor is it an offence involving moral turpitude. It is also not an offence against society. It is purely a speculative publicity seeking private complaint where the chances of ultimate conviction are very bleak and therefore no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the prosecution to continue. Therefore, the Court may take into consideration the special facts of the case and quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage. Please refer Madhav Rao Scindia's case AIR 1998 SC 709.
13.The petitioner relies on the following judgments:
(1972) 2 SCC 680 = AIR 1972 SC 2609 (2009) 2 SCC 516 (1988) 1 SCC 692 (1986) 3 SCC 67 (2001) 2 SCC 17 AIR 1998 SC 128 AIR 1998 SC 709 MANU/TN/0732/2008 (copy already handed)
14.It may be relevant to state here that the batch of quash petitions filed on behalf of actress Ms.Khushbhoo came to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court inter alia with a direction that all the complaints against her be clubbed together and tried by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. A copy of the judgment has already been handed over to this Hon'ble Court 2008-2-L.W. (Crl.) 811. This was appealed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further proceedings in the lower court have been stayed by the Apex Court. Since the present complaint is connected with the incident of Ms.Kushboo, as the matter has been stayed by the Apex Court, it is also just and appropriate that this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to adjourn the hearing till the Apex Court could decide the other issue.
6.The learned counsel further argued that the petitioner's speech was an impromptu speech and not a prepared one and that this clearly indicated that she had no intention to hurt the feelings of the Tamil People. She is also a women steeped in tamil culture and hails from a village. Her parents had brought her up in an Orthodox manner, according to tamil customs and traditions and further argued that the petitioner has not committed any offence and that her speech had been delivered in front of a select audience of about 50 persons.
7.The learned counsels for the respondents jointly and vehemently argued that the petitioner has caused deep hurt to the feelings of the Indian People. Her speech had been directed against Indian women. Further, the learned counsels pointed out that no self-respecting person can tolerate these kind of statements. Freedom of speech, as envisaged in the constitution, cannot be used as an excuse to hurt the feelings of others. Further, freedom of speech does not imply that one could say whatever he or she wants in a derogatory manner affecting or hurting the sentiments of people. Further, the learned counsels argued that all the respondents are social reformers and that they are all very particular in upholding Tamil culture.
8.After hearing these petitions, this Court pointed out that connected matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and that the Court awaits the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents' counsel had filed a joint memo on 05.11.2009, stating that the appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2008-2 LW (21) 811 will not be a bar for passing orders in the above Criminal O.Ps. On the basis of the joint memo, this Court passes the orders.
9.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court takes into account the following factors for coming to a decision on the issue.
1.The statement of the petitioner had been given on the spur at the moment, without any intention to hurt or wound the feelings of the people.
2.As per the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel, this Court accepts that the petitioner belongs to a family, which values Tamil culture.
10.In the related case, concerning actress Khushboo, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed all the 23 cases filed against her stating that the complaints woefully lacked in evidence. This Court is also taking the same view in the instant case and quashes all the criminal cases filed against the petitioner.
11.In the result, the above Criminal Original Petition Nos.33173, 33174, 33369, 33370, 33797, 34055, 34538 of 2005 and 4110 of 2006 are allowed and consequently the complaints and summons in C.C.No.1107 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Erode; C.C.No.644 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore District; C.C.No.648 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode; C.C.No.649 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode; C.C.No.293 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Vandavasi; C.C.No.462 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II; C.C.No.303 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Tiruvannamalai; C.C.No.28 of 2006, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Walajapet are quashed. Connected criminal miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
krk To
1.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Erode.
2.The District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore District,
3.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchengode
4.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Vandavasi
5.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur
6.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvannamalai
7.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Walajapet,
8.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 104