Madras High Court
Murugaboopathi vs Krishnan on 12 September, 2022
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 29/04/2022 Pronounced on : 12/09/2022 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.19368 of 2018 and Crl.MP(MD)No.8767 of 2018 Murugaboopathi : Petitioner/A1 Vs. Krishnan : Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to CC No.26 of 2016 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram and quash the same as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Veera Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.B.Balamurugpandi
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O R D E R
This criminal original petition is filed seeking
quashment of the case in CC N.26 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the respondent filed a private complaint with the following allegations:-
On 31/07/2015 at about 7.30 pm, the accused persons namely Murugaboopathi, Thamu, Daivendhran and one Balamurugan abused the complainant and his daughter Kalaiselvi in fifthly language and criminally intimidated and his daughter was also subjected to harassment. Over which, a complaint was given and the same was registered in Crime No.166 of 2015 for the offences under sections 294(b) and 323 IPC. But without properly undertaking the investigation, A1 supported the accused 2 and 3. So a complaint was sent by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram. On the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, instructed the Inspector of Police, attached to Devipattinam police station to 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis undertake proper investigation. On 04/08/2015 at about 10.30 am, the complainant and his son namely Vishal, De-
facto complainant and the above said Balamurugan went to the police station. At that time, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, who is A1 herein was present and abused them in filthy language and also caused assault with hands. He also assaulted his son with lathi. They were also criminally intimidated. With the above said allegations, he lodged a complaint, on 04/08/2015. But no proper action was taken. With the above said allegation, he filed a private complaint in CC No.26 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram stating that A1 to A3 are punishable under sections 294(b), 323, 167, 168, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC.
3.Now seeking quashment of the same, A1 is before this court by way of filing this petition on the ground that since the de-facto complainant has stated in his complaint that the petitioner has committed the offences during course of his official duty, section 197 Cr.P.C has not been properly complied; On the basis of the complaint given by the complainant, the FIR in Crime No.166 of 2015 was registered and final report was filed before the trial court and it was taken cognizance in STC No.346 of 2015; 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The offences alleged against the accused persons were bailable in nature. So the arrest will not lie. So the complaint itself is a mala fide exercise of right.
4.Heard both sides.
5.Now the allegation against this petitioner/A1 is that he created false records in Crime No.166 of 2015 as if they have committed the offences punishable under sections 167 and 168 IPC. This is the first allegation against this petitioner. If it is so, naturally the above said offence said to have committed by the petitioner during the course of his investigation i.e, while discharging his official duty. So, naturally PSO63 will come into operation. So the Superintendent of Police is the competent person to give sanction for prosecuting the petitioner before the trial court. But it appears that no such permission or sanction was obtained by the respondent before lodging the complaint. Even after filing the complaint and taking cognizance, no sanction appears to have been obtained from the competent authority concerned. This is the first defect, which is available in the complaint. More-over, section 168 IPC is not attracted.
4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.The next complaint is that this petitioner abused, criminally intimidated and assaulted not only the complainant, but also his son. Records have been called for from the court concerned to see whether any medical records have been produced along with the complaint. In the index only, the list of witnesses have been mentioned and no medical records have been produced in the complaint, even it has not been stated that because of the above said assault, they sustained injuries and they undergone treatment. Even though, it has been stated that he sustained injury, no corroborative documentary evidence has been produced to even prima facie show that they suffered assault and injury.
7.Similarly, the records in respect of STC No.346 of 2005 has also been called for and perused. In that case, All the accused persons, who are the accused 2 and 3 herein were convicted and imposed a fine of Rs.400/- each, on 23/09/2015. From this, it is clear that as mentioned above by the petitioner, the respondent wanted the petitioner to arrest A2 and A3 in the above said crime. When that was not accepted, to wreck vengeance, this complaint has been filed, which clearly amounts to a mala fide exercise of right and clear case of abuse of process of court and law. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.In light of the above facts, this criminal original petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings against this petitioner is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
12.09.2022 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No er To, The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram.
6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.ILANGOVAN,J., er Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19368 of 2018 12/09/2022 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis