Madras High Court
Jennifer William vs The State Rep on 13 March, 2020
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.2064, 2068, 2070, 2072,
2075 and 2071 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Date : 13.03.2020
PRESENT
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.2064, 2068, 2070, 2072,
2075 and 2071 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P(MD).Nos.1033, 1034, 1035, 1036,
1037, 1039, 1038, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1044 and 1045 of 2020
Crl.O.P(MD).No.2064 of 2020
Jennifer William ... Petitioner
Vs
The State rep., by its
Inspector of Police,
Kudankulam Police Station,
Tirunelveli District 627 104
Crime No.330 of 2012 ... Respondent
PRAYER : Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for
the entire records pertaining to PRC No.41 of 2014 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate Court, Radhapuram and quash the same
against the petitioner herein.
For Petitioners : Mr.L.P.Maurya
For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
(for R1)
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.2064, 2068, 2070, 2072,
2075 and 2071 of 2020
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner is figuring as one of the accused in all these cases. All the cases were registered in connection with Koodankulam agitation. Crime No.330 of 2012 was registered on the file of Kudankulam Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 353, 188 and 506 (ii) IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act r/w.34 of IPC. Since Section 3 TNPPDL Act is involved, the case is still pending at the committal stage in PRC.No. 41 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Radhapuram. PRC.No.43 of 2014 relates to Crime No.334 of 2012. Crl.O.P(MD).No.2072 of 2012 pertains to Crime No.126 of 2013 registered at the instance of one Prathap for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC. Crl.O.P(MD).No.2071 of 2020 pertains to Crime No.331 of 2012 on the file of the Kudankulam Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 353, 188, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act r/w 34 of IPC. Crl.O.P(MD).No.2070 of 2020 pertains to Crime No.332 of 2012 registered on the file of the Kudankulam Police station for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 120(B) and 506(ii) of IPC. Crl.O.P(MD).No.2075 of 2020 pertains to Crime No.304 of 2012 registered on the file of the 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.2064, 2068, 2070, 2072, 2075 and 2071 of 2020 Kudankulam Police Station for the offence under Sections 143, 188 of IPC and Section 2 of Prevention of Insult of National Honour Act, 1971.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contention setout in the memorandum of grounds and wanted this Court to quash the impugned proceedings as far as the petitioner is concerned.
3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the Government submitted that the petitioner has not made out a case for invoking inherent power of this Court and wanted this Court to relegate him to work out his remedy before the trial Court.
4.I carefully went through the materials on record and heard the rival contentions.
5.On carefully going through the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner has not been charged with having committed any specific overt act. Only some general allegations of omnibus nature have been made against the petitioner. Some of 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.2064, 2068, 2070, 2072, 2075 and 2071 of 2020 the allegations are on the face of it inherently improbable. For instance, in Crime No.330 of 2012 it is alleged that the accused unlawfully assembled on 06.09.2012 a little past midnight and started raising slogans against the nuclear power plant and also damaged the sand bags stacked by the Police for security reasons. All the cases registered against the petitioner are more than eight years old. Some of the cases allege breach of prohibitory orders. But then, it is not the case of the prosecution that any adverse consequence ensued. During the relevant time, the petitioner was a student of Polytechnic College. The FIRs have been registered against the petitioner in quick succession. On the strength of mere omnibus statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the petitioner has also been roped in as accused. The petitioner has not rushed to the Court immediately. Continued pendency of the impugned prosecution constitutes an abuse of legal process. In this view of the matter, the impugned proceedings against the petitioner stand quashed. These Criminal Original Petitions are allowed accordingly.
13.03.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rmk 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.2064, 2068, 2070, 2072, 2075 and 2071 of 2020 To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Radhapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police, Kudankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli District 627 104
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.2064, 2068, 2070, 2072, 2075 and 2071 of 2020 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J., rmk ORDER IN Crl.O.P(MD).Nos.2064, 2068, 2070, 2072, 2075 and 2071 of 2020 13.03.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in