Madras High Court
Petitioner vs The State Rep. By on 17 May, 2016
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 18.12.2018
Delivered on 30.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.[MD] No.20936 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P[MD]No.9681 of 2018
B.John Pandian
: Petitioner
vs.
1.The State rep. by
The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Devipattinam Police Station,
Devipattinam,
Ramanathapuram District.
(crime No.249 of 2016)
3.L.Jothi Murugan
Sub Inspector of Police,
Ramanathapuram Traffic Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records pertaining to the
FIR in Crime No.249 of 2016 dated 17.05.2016 on the file of the
Inspector of Police, Devipattinam Police Station, Ramanathapuram
District and quash the same.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan.S.Kumar for
Mr.T.Kamaraj
For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj
Addl. Public Prosecutor
****
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.249 of 2016 dated 17.05.2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Devipattinam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District registered for the offences under Sections 353, 188 IPC and Sections 132 and 177 of Motor Vehicles Act.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, along with his police party was on election duty at Devipattinam Government Higher Secondary School on 16.05.2016 at 05.00 p.m. At that time, the petitioner along with his candidate had come in a vehicle within 100 metres radians of the polling booth and when the defacto complainant had instructed him not to come in the vehicle within the 100 metre range, the petitioner has prevented the defacto complainant from discharging his duty and defying the instruction proceeded in the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 vehicle into the polling booth and based on the complaint given by him, a case in crime No.249 of 2016 was registered by the second respondent from the offences under Sections 353, 188 IPC r/w 132 & 177 of M.V. Act. The occurrence is stated to have happened on 16.05.2016 and the complaint has been given on 17.05.2016.
3.Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the founder-president of a political party, namely, Thamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam which is working for uplifting of socially marginalized people in Tamil Nadu and that the petitioner had contested Tamil Nadu State Assembly Election, 2016 in Thiruvadanai constituency and his party members contested in various constituencies in Tamil Nadu. As a founder-president, the petitioner had visited various polling booths including one situated at Government Higher Secondary School, Devipattinam, at about 3.30 p.m on 16.05.2016 along with his supporters. The Petitioner left the election booth immediately after enquiring about polling position in the said booth. There was no problem during his visit in the booth as per the report of the election officer. Subsequently, for the reasons best known to the respondent Police, a case had been registered in Crime No.249 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 188 of I.P.C r/w Section 132 and 177 of Motor Vehicles Act. http://www.judis.nic.in 4
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the entire reading of the first information report does not disclose any cognizable offence and would further submit that even assuming that the case of the prosecution is to be taken on the face value, the entire allegations in the FIR, does not constitute the offence mentioned therein. He would further submit that the complaint has been registered by the respondent and even as per the FIR, the second respondent himself has registered the case and taken up the investigation, which is not permissible under law. He would further submit that the respondent cannot registered an FIR for Section 188 IPC and only a private complaint is maintainable. In the above said circumstances, if the investigation is allowed to be proceeded, it would be an abuse of process of law and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the FIR is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2018-2-L.W.(Crl) 606 [Jeevanantham and others Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District]. Further, with regard to offence under Section 353 IPC, he would submit that the averments do not disclose anything as if the petitioner either assaulted or used criminal force against the defacto complainant and he would rely on the decision of this Court reported in (2018)1 MLJ (Crl) 347 [Sekar vs. State rep. by Inspector of http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Police, Tiruvonam Police Station, Tanjore District].
5.Further, in respect of traffic offences, he would submit that the offences alleged to have been punishable with fine of Rs.100/- and that the cognizance cannot be taken after the expiry of the period of limitation.
6.Mr.Anandraj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on 16.05.2016 at about 17.00 hours, while the third respondent was on election bandobust duty at Government Higher Secondary School, Devipattinam along with his police party, the petitioner herein, who is the founder of Tamilaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam, came in a car closely into the restricted distance of 100 metres from the polling booth. When the third respondent intervened and insisted him not to enter into the prohibitory limit of 100 metres from the polling booth in his vehicle the petitioner had defied the instruction of the third respondent by violating the regulatory order promulgated according to the code of election conduct and thereby prevented the petitioner from discharging public duty and in this connection, on the complaint of the third respondent, a case in Crime No.249 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 353, 188 IPC and Section 132 r/w 177 of M.V. Act, has been registered by the second respondent.
7.I have gone through the FIR.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
8.It is seen from the records that the respondent had registered the FIR for the offences under Section 188 IPC. Further, on reading of the FIR in entirety no averments for offences under Section 353 have been made out. This Hon'ble Court in 1989 Crl.L.J 1833 (Murugesan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu) referring to AIR 1966 SC 1775 (Durgacharan Waik vs. State of Orissa) has held that provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C cannot be evaded by resorting to devices or camouflage of clubbing other cognizable offences not actually made out.
9.Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel and also the decision referred supra, this Court is of the opinion that the further proceedings is an abuse of process of law and therefore, the First Information Report in Crime No.249 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police is liable to be quashed.
10.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The First Information Report in Crime No.249 of 2016 on the file of Devipattinam Police Station is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No 30.01.2019
Internet : Yes/No
skn
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Devipattinam Police Station,
Devipattinam,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.L.Jothi Murugan
Sub Inspector of Police,
Ramanathapuram Traffic Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
skn
Crl.O.P.[MD] No.20936 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P[MD]No.9681 of 2018
30.01.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in