Madras High Court
K.R.Periya Karuppan vs The State Represented By on 20 April, 2022
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.11331 & 11332 of 2017
1. K.R.Periya Karuppan
2. T.Saravanan
3. Somasundaram
4. Sezhian
5. Sengaimaran
6. Manimuthu
7. Charlas
8. N.M.Chakla
9. Rajkumar
10. Senthilkumar @ Nagadi Senthilkumar
11. Pandian @ Pookadai Pandian
12. Sikkandar Badusha
13. Kavithasan
14. Baskara Pandian
15. Chandran
16. Kalimuthu @ Kavignar Kalimuthu
17. Vaithialingam
18. Mohamed Meera
19. Muniandi
20. Murugesan
21. Gunasekaran
22. Chokku @ Lakshmanan
23. Ravichandran ... Petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/19
Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017
Vs.
1. The State Represented by:-
Inspector of Police,
Thiruppathur Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
2. Senthilkumar ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
pleased to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings PRC No.32
of 2015 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, in
Crime No.397 of 2015 on the file of Inspector of Police, Thiruppathur Police
Station, Sivagangai District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Muthuramalingam
For R1 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor.
For R2 : Mr.S.Arivazhagan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned proceedings PRC No.32 of 2015 pending committal on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, in Crime No.397 of 2015 on the file of Inspector of Police, Thiruppathur Police Station, Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017
2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant who is working as a Camera Man in the Department of Information and Publicity, is that on 24.10.2015, during the Government function of paying homage and respect to Maruthu Brothers at the Maruthu Memorials in Tiruppathur town, the first petitioner who was MLA had in violation of the orders come along with their group to pay homage to the Maruthu Brothers on their Memorial Day and during that time had caused damage to the windscreen of the advertisement vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-20-G-1750. On the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.397 of 2015 was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 353 IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1992. Later, during the course of the investigation, the FIR was altered to one under Sections 143, 147, 148, 188 (ii), 353, 506 (ii) IPC r/w Section 34, 120(b) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act 1992. The respondent police after completion of investigation had filed the final report and the case has been taken on file in PRC.No.32 of 2015 on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur.
3. Mr.K.Muthuramalingam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner is presently a sitting MLA and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 a Cabinet Minister. During the year 2015, the petitioner was a MLA in the opposition and he was also the District Secretary of the Political Party. The petitioner along with his party cadre had gone to pay homage to Maruthu Brothers Death Memorial. Due to political vendetta, a false case was foisted against them. He would further submit that during the relevant time, huge crowd from various districts around Sivagangai gathered right from the morning, to pay homage to the memorial rand the respondent taking advantage of the some commotion, the de-facto complainant given a false compliant.
4. He would also submit that there were huge crowd thronging the memorial right from morning 7.00 am, and the wind screen of the vehicle was damaged in the morning itself. Whereas on the pressure given by the superior officers, de-facto complainant was forced to give a false complaint against the petitioners at 4.00 pm. The de-facto complainant had submitted that the complaint was given only on political vendetta and he had filed an affidavit stating that the windscreen of the vehicle was damaged in the morning itself and he was forced by his superiors to give a false complaint against the petitioners. Now, on his own will, he had decided to file the consent affidavit to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that since, the first petitioner is the Minister, he is unable to appear before this Court and he has filed an affidavit dated 08.04.2022, seeking to dispense with his personal appearance before this Court. The fourth petitioner has passed away and the death certificate of the fourth petitioner is enclosed herewith. He would further submit that though the petitioners do not admit the allegations against them, since as per the final report, allegations are made against A2 and A3 as if they had caused the damage to the wind screen and A2 and A3 without prejudice have also deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- in favour of the Department of Information and Publicity and the receipt is also enclosed herewith.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that based on the complaint given by the second respondent, a case in Crime No.397 of 2015 was registered by the respondent police, initially for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 353 IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act 1992. Later, during the course of the investigation, the FIR was altered to one under Sections 143, 147, 148, 188 (ii), 353, 506 (ii) IPC r/w Section 34, 120(b) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act 1992 and thereafter, after completion of investigation had filed the final report and cited 23 witnesses. He would further submit that the case is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 now pending committal on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur. He would also submit that now that the second respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the complaint was given due to the political vendetta and pressure of his superior officers and that the petitioners are not involved in the offences.
7. The de-facto complainant is present before this Court. He would submit that he had given the complaint due to the pressure given by the Superior officers and he was forced to give such a complaint against the petitioners and that he is not pressing the complaint.
8. Mr.S.Arivazhagan, learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant would submit that the de-facto complainant had been forced to give such a false complaint and that he is withdrawing the same on his own will, without any pressure or coercion.
9. Heard the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017
10. Perusal of record shows that the case is under trial. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.
11. A consent affidavit has been filed before this Court, which has been signed by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and his counsel. The parties (excepting the 1st petitioner and the 4th petitioner) were present before this Court and they were identified by their respective counsel. This Court also enquired both the parties and satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves. The relevant portion of the consent affidavit dated 30.03.2022 filed by the de-facto complainant is extracted hereunder:-
“2. I submit that the 1st respondent herein registered a case in Crime No.397 of 2015 for the offence u/s. 147, 148, 353, IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act on the basis of the complaint given by me. After completion of investigation the first respondent filed a final report against the petitioner under section 143, 147, 148, 188 (ii) IPC r/w. 34, 120(b) IPC and section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppathur in PRC No.32 of 2015 and the same is pending before for committal.
3. I submit that on that day there was huge https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 gathering to honour the Marudhu Pandyar Brothers on their death anniversary. From the morning 7.00 am crowd gathered there and the windscreen of the vehicle was damaged in the morning itself. But due to superior's pressure I was forced to lodge the complaint against this petitioners at 4.00 p.m. I submit that to my conscious, I felt that the criminal proceedings was initiated due to political vendetta and hence on my own will, I have decided to file this consent affidavit to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. I have taken this decision on my own will and without any undue influence from any corner.
4. I submit that I am filing this consent affidavit and willing to compromise the dispute and I have no objection in quashing the case pending against the petitioners.”
12. It is settled law that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings even for the offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the parties have settled their dispute between themselves. However, while quashing the criminal proceedings, based on the settlement arrived at between the parties, the High Court should act with caution and the power should be exercised sparingly only in order to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 secure the ends of justice and also to prevent abuse of process of any Court.
13. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [2012 (10) SCC 303], the Supreme Court has held as follows:
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society."
14. In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2014(6) SCC 466], after considering the Gian Singh's case referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 has held as follows :-
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."
15. In Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2017 SC 4843], the Supreme Court held thus"
"(1) Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inherent in the High Court.
(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 Section 320 CrPC. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
(5) the decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulate.
(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 (7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in Propositions (8) and (9) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
16. Subsequently, a three judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering all the above judgments, has held as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 follows:
i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-
compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;
iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc." https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017
17. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us now consider the instant case as to whether it is a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings based on the settlement arrived at between the parties.
18. In the case at hand, the first petitioner was an opposition party MLA during the relevant time. The incident had happened on 24.10.2022 on memorial day of Maruthu brothers. It is also submitted that on the day large number of people gathered from various districts around Sivagangai to pay homage to Maruthu Brothers. The de-facto complainant is present before this Court and he has been identified by Mr.G.Sundara Mahalingam, Inspector of Police, Thiruppathur Police Station, Sivagangai District and this Court had enquired the de- facto complainant. He has also filed an affidavit before this Court, where he had stated that the wind screen of the vehicle was damaged in the morning 7.00 am., during the huge gathering and that due to the pressure given by the superior officers , he was forced to lodge a complaint against the petitioner at 4.00 p.m.
19. In view of the affidavit of the de-facto complainant not pressing the complaint, the possibility of conviction is also remote and bleak. In the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 above circumstances, the continuity of the criminal proceedings would only cause oppression, frustration and prejudice to the parties, hence, in order to secure the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner.
20. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and impugned proceedings PRC No.32 of 2015 on the file of District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, in Crime No.397 of 2015 on the file of Inspector of Police, Thiruppathur Police Station, Sivagangai District is hereby quashed and the consent affidavit filed by the de-facto complainant/R2 dated 30.03.2022, shall form part and parcel of Court records. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.04.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ham https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/19 Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J ham To
1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur,
2. The Inspector of Police, Thiruppathur Police Station, Sivagangai District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
Crl.O.P(MD).No.17277 of 2017 and Crl.M.P(MD).No.11331 & 11332 of 2017 20.04.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/19