Madras High Court
Anitha vs S.Vijayalakshmi : R1/Complainant on 19 December, 2023
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 19/12/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.6182 of 2023
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.5401 of 2023
Anitha : Petitioner/A4
Vs.
1.S.Vijayalakshmi : R1/Complainant
2.State rep. by its:-
The Inspector of Police,
C4, Thilagarthidal Police Station (L & O),
Madurai District.
3.Deepa,
Sup Inspector of Police,
C4, Thilagarthidal Police Station (L & O),
Madurai District.
4.Krishnaveni,
Head Constable,
C4, Thilagarthidal Police Station (L & O),
Madurai District. : R2 to R4/R1 to R3
PRAYER:-Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call
for the records relating to the charge sheet in CC No.35
of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Madurai, quash the same as against the petitioner/Accused
No.4 is concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Susi Kumar
For 1st Respondent : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
for Mr.G.Raja Guru
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
For R3 and R4 : Mr.V.Sasi Kumar
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the charge sheet in CC No.35 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.
2.The facts in brief:-
The 1st respondent herein filed a private complaint against the police officials stating the following facts:-
One Mathupandian, who is the brother of her husband by making criminal intimidation, obtained the signature of her husband in blank papers. Over that, her husband gave a complaint against Mathupandian and others. CSR Receipt No.167 of 2018 was registered by the second respondent herein namely Deepa. During enquiry, the said Deepa was siding Mathupandian. Later, her husband filed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2023 Cr.MP No.4660 of 2018 for direction. That was also allowed. Thereafter also, no FIR was registered by A2 (Deepa) and A4 (Anitha). But instead of that, threatened her husband to hand over the possession. Later, on 25/05/2018, the case was registered against Mathupandian and others, in Crime No.950 of 2018. Even after that, they are siding Mathupandian. They obtained a false complaint, on 12/01/2019 and registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2019 for the offences under sections 448, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC against her and husband.
During Pongal festival time, she informed the police about the theft in her shop. The police officials from the Thilagarthidal came to the spot. At the instigation of this petitioner, A3 and Krishnaveli, she was dragged to the police station by arresting. At the time of making the arrest, no proper procedure was followed. Even in the police station, they were harassed, ill-treated, abused and assaulted. Rs.15,000/- was also snatched from her. Again, on the false complaint, a case in Crime No.26 of 2019 was registered against her. They were arrested in that place and remanded to custody.
3.Seeking action against the police officials, she made a complaint, on 25/02/2019. A case in Crime No.950 of 2018 was registered and thereafter, it was closed as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2023 'Mistake of Fact' at the instance of Mathupandian and others. Later, she filed WP(MD)No.5508 of 2019 seeking action against the police officials. In that order, compensation was ordered to be paid to her by the Government. Departmental action was also ordered to be initiated against A2 to A4. But so far, no action is taken. Later she gave a complaint, on 31/08/2020. But no action was taken. So with these, she filed a private complaint for punishing A2 to A4 under section 166A of IPC. It was taken on file in CC No.35 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai. Now it is stated to be pending.
4.Seeking quashment of the same, this petitioner, who is arrayed as A4 is before this court.
5.Heard both sides.
6.In the light of the above said factual fact, now let us go to the order passed by this court in WP(MD)No. 5508 of 2019, which was filed by the 1st respondent herein.
7.In that petition, the first respondent herein has stated that she was arrested after sunset in connection https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2023 with Crime No.20 of 2018 in violation of the provisions of section 46(4) of Cr.P.C. She was kept in illegal custody for two days. She wants Departmental Action to be initiated against the erring police officials and compensation. It was held that the arrest is illegal and violation of the condition. So, Departmental Action was also ordered to be initiated and compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- was ordered to be paid. In pursuance of the direction, G.O.Ms.No.43 of 2010 was also passed by the Government sanctioning the amount. After that, she filed a private complaint seeking punishment of A2 to A4 under section 166A of IPC.
8.Section 166A of IPC reads as under:-
“166A.Public servant disobeying direction under law.--Whoever, being a public servant,--
(a)knowingly disobeys any
direction of the law which prohibits
him from requiring the attendance at
any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other matter, or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2023
(b)knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation, or
(c)fails to record any information given to him under sub-section (1) of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in relation to cognizable offence punishable under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354B, section 370, section 370A, section 376, section 376A, [section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2023
9.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would draw the attention of this court on the point as to whether any sanction is required for initiating action against this petitioner and others under section 166-A of IPC.
10.Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C reads as under:-
“197.Prosecution of Judges and public servants.(1)When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his officer save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction (save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013)
(a)in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b)in the case of a person who https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2023 is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State of the State Government;
Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government"
were substituted.
Explanation.-For the removal
of doubts it is hereby declared
that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB,] or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. (45 OF 1860).” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2023
11.The explanation is self-explanatory. For initiation of the proceedings under section 166-A of IPC, section 197 IPC does not apply. So this ground is not available to the petitioner. The first ground fails.
12.Regarding the second ground, as per Section 166-A of IPC, one of the persons, who authorise or violate the direction can be proceeded. For that purpose, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the word 'whoever being a public servant' assumes importance. According to the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, she is not an Arresting Officer on the date of the alleged arrest. She was elsewhere attending bundobust duty over Jallikattu issue.
13.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would rely upon the RTI report furnished by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City. Wherein, it is stated that in connection with Crime No.20 of 2019, the 1st respondent was arrested, on 14/01/2019 at about 08.00 pm, after getting due permission from this petitioner at his oral orders. So, according to the 1 st respondent, this itself indicates that this petitioner permitted or authorised the Arresting Officer to make arrest.
14.So the question, which arises for consideration https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2023 is whether this particular information furnished by the Public Information Officer is sufficient enough to initiate criminal proceedings. Nowhere in the Criminal Procedure Code, it has been stipulated that the Arresting Officer must get permission from the higher officials. Then how the information was furnished to the 1st respondent over the permission or oral permission granted by this petitioner is not known.
15.Even though, the petitioner is not in a position to satisfactorily inform the Court about the information furnished by the Public Information Officer, but I am of the considered view that this RTI answer is not sufficient enough to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officials. So, I find that the allegations mentioned in the petition per se are not attracted against the petitioner.
16.On that sole ground, without going into the other aspects, this criminal original petition is liable to be allowed. The criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner is hereby quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2023
17.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed. The charge sheet in CC No.35 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19/12/2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, C-4, Thilagarthidal Police Station (L&O) Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/12 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6182 of 2023 G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.OP(MD)No.6182 of 2023 19/12/2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/12