Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 29, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Venkata Saravanan Alias vs Inspector Of Police on 9 September, 2014

Author: C.T. Selvam

Bench: C.T. Selvam

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.09.2014

CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM
Crl.R.C. Nos.1589 of 2013
& 350  of  2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014

Venkata Saravanan alias
  Prasanna Venkatacharya
   Sdurvedi								.. Petitioner in 						     Crl.R.C.No.1589 of 2013
Kalki Manoharan @ N.Manoharan				..  Petitioner in 						     Crl.R.C.No.350 of 2014

Vs.

Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch-Team VII,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008					... Respondent in 							both revisions

								
      Criminal Revision Cases filed under Section 397 r/w.Sec.401 Cr.P.C. against the orders dated 21.11.2013 and 01.03.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.4446 of 2013 and 3805 of 2014 in 387 of 2005.

                  	For Petitioners    : Mr.N.Panchaksharamoorthy
					   in Crl.R.C.No.1589 of 2013
					   Mr.P.Raja in
					   Crl.R.C.No.350 of 2014
			
	For Respondent  : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
					   Govt.Advocate(Crl.side)
					   in both revisions




		          
			      COMMON ORDER

Crl.R.C.No.1589 of 2013 is preferred against the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.4446 of 2013 by the Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Chennai, under order dated 21.11.2013 in S.C.No.387 of 2005.

2.A final report was filed in P.R.C.No.387 of 2005 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, alleging offences under sections 376(1), 384, 385, 363, 354, 342, 343, 352, 448, 417, 420, 294(b), 427, 452, 406, 392, 506(i)(ii), 509 r/w 34 and 109 IPC. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner/A1 was running one Sri Ramanuja Mission Trust and delivering upanyas and lectures for Vaishnavites. The de facto complainant/ LW-1, his wife Geetha @ Sivagama Sundari, daughters Priyamvatha @ Mathuvanthi and Manasa called at the trust of the petitioner to hear his lectures and obtain his blessings during the month of October 2002. Using the devotion to God and the Vaishnavite religion of the LW-1 family, the petitioner/A1 caused them to believe that he was the incarnation of Lord Perumal and using the assistance of A2 to A7 caused them untold hardships. The gist of the accusations is as follows:

Charge No. Offences Against Under Section Triable by Date of occurrence Allegations 1 A1 to A7 A7 384 IPC Magistrate January 2003 to January 2004 Threatened witness Suresh and committed extortion of Rs.7 lakhs, silver articles, gold jewelleries, projectors, cell phone, lap top and computer.
2

A1 and A4 A1-376(1) IPC A4  376(1) r/w. 109 IPC Sessions Sessions 04.03.03 A1  committed rape on Priyamvadha @ Madhuvanthi A4  justified the act of A1 at his Ashram.

3

A1 376(i) IPC Sessions 04.03.03 A1 committed rape on Priyamvadha @ Madhuvanthi.

4

A1, A5 384, 294(b), 420 r/w 34 IPC Magistrate 12.10.03 Extorted Rs.47,000/- from Suresh abused him filthy language and cheated by giving a cheque which was returned unpaid.

5

A1 354, 294(b), 4 of TN Women Act Magistrate 30.12.03 Abused Geetha in filthy language when she refused to give him a bath.

6

A1 342, 417, 376(1) IPC Sessions 26.01.04 A1 raped Priyamvadha at his Ashram on the promise of marrying her.

7

A1 506(i) IPC Magistrate 7/8.2.04 Threatened Sivagami Sundari @ Geetha at Thirupathi.

8

A1 376(1), 354, 509 IPC, 4 of TN Women Act Sessions 3rd week of Feb'04 A1 raped Priayamvatha @ Madhuvanthi at his Ashram in the presence of her father.

9

A1 354, 4 of Women Atrocities Act Magistrate 04.04.04 Threatened Geetha through phone and asked her to talk in obscene language.

10

A1 352, 354, 4 of Women Atrocities Act Magistrate 11.04.04 When Suresh and Geetha went to Ashram, to take back Priyamvatha, A1 kicked Geetha and threatened her.

11

A1 354, 509, 4 of Women Atrocities Act Magistrate 25.04.04 At Sriperumpudur, lay on the lap of Geetha and kissed her.

12

A1 354, 4 of Women Atrocities Act Magistrate 17.05.04 At Vishagapatinam, asked Priyamvatha and Geetha to stand nacked in front of Manasa.

13

A1 4 of Women Atrocities Act Magistrate 4th week of May 2004 At Mysore in one Ravi's house, kept Manasa in a cupboard and did not allow her to sleep the whole night.

14

A1, A3 448 r/w 109 - A1 448  A3 452, 384 r/w 34 Magistrate 03.06.04 to 17.06.04 04.06.04 Trespassed in to another portion of the and beat Suresh and committed extortion of jewellery.

15

A1, A2 A1  452, 343,506(i), 109 A2  452, 343, 506(i) Magistrate 22.06.04 to 25.06.04 Detained Geetha and Suresh and obtained signatures on blank papers and also threatened them.

16

A2 506(ii) Magistrate 27.06.04 Threatened Suresh that he would kill his daughter Manasa at the Ashram.

17

A1 4 of T.N.W.A. Act Magistrate 18.07.04 Lit camphor on the palm of Manasa.

18

A1, A2 354, 4 of TNWA Act 364 IPC Magistrate Magistrate 07.08.04 08.08.04 Compelled Geetha to sleep next to other male members of the Ashram A2 kidnapped Geetha from her home and threatened her and obtained signature on blank papers.

19

A1, A2, A3, A4 363 IPC Magistrate 17.09.04 They kidnapped Geetha and Madhuvanthi from their house.

20

A1, A2 452, 392 r/w 34 IPC Magistrate Before 6 months Robbed 8 sovereign gold chain from Geetha at TTK Road.

21

A1 to A7 420, 406, 384 r/w 34 IPC 506(i) IPC Magistrate Magistrate Jan'03 to Jan'04 04.09.04 Threatened public and merchants and received gift, money, land and car. Wrote threatening letter to Suresh and his wife.

22

A1 to A7 384 IPC Magistrate Feb'04 to Aug'04 Threatened Suresh and committed extortion of 7 lakhs silver articles, gold jewellery, laptop and computer.

23

A1 to A7 420, 406, 384 r/w 34 IPC Magistrate Feb'04 to Aug'04 Threatened public and merchants and received gifts, money, land, car.

3. The main thrust of the submission of learned counsel for petitioner before this Court is that no opening statement was made by the learned Public Prosecutor in keeping with Section 226 Cr.P.C.

4.In dismissing the petition for discharge, the Court below has taken note of the attendant allegations against the petitioner and has held against him informing thus:

"On perusal of the records produced by the prosecution and the statements of the witnesses, it is found that there were major allegations against the petitioner/A1 for 23 offence, that too, physical and mental abuse of the minor girls and their mother such as L.W.2 to L.W.4 which was complained by father of the minor girls namely Suresh. Petitioner/A1 was stated to be a religious person has been alleged to have committed many sexual violence acts and physical violence act to the minor girls and also extracted money, gold and silver articles and jewels and also threatened them by saying that if they don't co-operate with the petitioner/A1, they would be punished by Lord Perumal and he has misrepresented himself as the avatharam of God. He has also alleged to have abused the witnesses by filthy words and alleged to have committed all the offence in the guise of God taking advantage of the faith of the prosecution witnesses in God that too Lord Perumal. The petitioner/A1 cannot merely ask for discharge as the case was prolonged for 7 years without opening the prosecution case by the Public Prosecutor. The long delay for more than 8 years was only due to the filing of various petitions by the various accused one after another for all these years. At last, the learned Public Prosecutor also opened the case of petitioner/A1 in which the learned Public Prosecutor explained what all charges have been alleged against the petitioner/A1. The petitioner/A1 stated that the 161 statements and documents concerning the scene of occurrence his more the nature of narrating of sensational story than in nature of presentation of case in accordance with the various provisions of the Penal Code. But the witnesses enquired on the side of prosecution have narrated the occurrences one by one and the pattern of presentation cannot be looked into at the pre-trial stage. The other averments by the petitioner/A1 in para 11 to para 17 of the petition in which the petitioner/A1 has denied all the charges u/s.448, 508, 294, S.4 of Women Harassment are to be presented by way of defence while cross examining the witnesses. The Court is bound by the provisions of IPC, Indian Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code and in accordance with the Aristotilian logic or western logic or Niyaya Sastra complied and propounded by Aksha Patha. Hence at this stage, this Court is of considered view that there is prima facie material available on record to frame charge against the petitioner/A1 who have been charged for 23 offences by the prosecution. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed."

4. As often stated 'first impression is the best impression'. Section 226 Cr.P.C. permits the prosecution to make the first impression regards a case, one which might be difficult to dispel. In not insisting upon its right under Section 226 Cr.P.C., the prosecution would be doing itself a disfavour. If the accused is to contend that the case against him has not been explained owing to non compliance with Section 226 Cr.P.C., the answer would be that the 173(2) Cr.P.C. report in the case would give him a fair idea thereof and that the stage of framing of charges u/s.228 Cr.P.C. is reached after crossing the stage of Section 227 Cr.P.C. which affords both prosecution and accused a fair opportunity to put forth their rival contentions. The order under challenge, a portion of which stands extracted above, informs reasons for dismissing the discharge petition which allow of no interference. In the absence of any material to inform how the accused have been prejudiced, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner really does not merit consideration. Crl.R.C.No.1589 of 2013 stands dismissed.

5. Crl.R.C.No.350 of 2014: This revision challenges the order dated 1.3.2014, passed in Crl.M.P.No.3805 of 2014 in S.C.No.387 of 2005. The petitioner is the fifth accused in the case. The petitioner's prayer was to split up the charges as against him.

6. In dismissing the petition, the Court below has observed thus:

"A1 filed petition to separate the charge which was dismissed by this Court and the matter was taken up to Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the petition. Now as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court this case is posted for framing of charges. But now after 9 years and that too at the time of framing charges and when all the accused are present, this petition is filed. On perusal of the charge sheet it is evident that the petitioner/A5 was not charge sheeted for separate offence. Charge sheet was filed against petitioner/A5 is U/s.420, 406, 384 read with 34 and 294(b) along with A1 to A4 & A6, A7. Hence the charge against petitioner/A5 alone cannot be separated and to be tried by the Magistrate. Since the offence alleged to have committed by this petitioner/accused has arisen out of same transaction with other accused. Hence this petition is dismissed."

We find no error in the above reasoning. Crl.R.C.No.350 of 2014 stands dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

7. The present is a case where abuse of the judicial process towards protracting proceedings is laid bare in the observations of the Court below in Crl.M.P.No.4446 of 2013. The same usefully may be extracted:

"Point:-
Heard both sides. The petitioner A1 filed this petition to discharge the petitioner from the charges alleged to have been stated in the charge sheet. The petitioner stated that the petitioner/A1 was registered a case u/s.120B, 341, 323, 324, 448, 452, 406, 420, 294, 363A, 376, 348, 506(2), 509, 508, 354, 503, 384, 397, 427, 318 of IPC and S.4 of Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The defacto complainant Suresh gave the complaint and the case was registered against the petitioner/A1 and also the other accused A2 to A7. After investigation the respondent police, Central Crime Branch filed the charge sheet and the case was committed to this court for trial. When this case was posted to frame charges against all the accused along with petitioner/A1, the other accused A7 filed the petitioner u/s.227 Cr.P.C.for discharging him from the charges in Crl.M.P.No.7290/2005 and the petitioner was dismissed by this Court after enquiry on 30.11.2005. Again when it was posted for framing of charges, the other accused A5 filed petition to discharge him from the charges u/s.227 Cr.P.C.in Crl.M.P.No.10381/2005. When this petition was pending for enquiry, A6 filed petition u/s.227 Cr.P.C.to discharge him in Crl.M.P.No.251/2006. Both petitions have been enquired and the petitions were dismissed on 23.02.2006. This court again posted the case for framing of charges on 6.3.2006. At that time, it was represented on behalf of the accused that the revision is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Madras. In the meantime, this petitioner/A1 filed petition u/s.127, 218 and 228(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.to de-link various charges and send the case file to be tried by appropriate court. The same was pending upto December 2009 and on 31.12.2009, the petition filed by petitioner/A1 was dismissed. Then A4 filed petition u/s.227 Cr.P.C.in Crl.M.P.No.1250/2010 which was also dismissed by this Court on 8.3.2011. By the time, the criminal revision filed before the Honourable High Court in Crl.O.P.No.275 of 2010 and Crl.O.P.No.645/2010 were dismissed by the Honourable High Court and on 18.3.2011 it was posted for framing of charges. At that time Criminal Revision was filed by petitioner/A1 before the Honourable High Court and stayed by Honourable High Court. The criminal revision by Honourable High Court was dismissed and the other was produced before this Court on 30.1.2013. Against the order, SLP 39442/2012 was filed by petitioner/A1 which was also dismissed and this court posted the case for further proceedings for the prosecutor as well as the accused to present their cases. On that day the petitioner/A1 filed this petition along with permission to file the discharge petition."

8. Taking judicial notice of the manner in which proceedings before the trial Court have been stalled for the past nine years, this Court directs the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, to dispose of the case in S.C.No.387 of 2005, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 

msk							09.09.2014

Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No





To

1.The Sessions Judge,
    Mahila Court, Madras.

2.The Public Prosecutor,
   High Court, Madras.


































 C.T. SELVAM J.,
										msk














  Crl.R.C. Nos.Crl.R.C. Nos.1589 of 2013 & 350  of  2014

















09.09.2014