Madras High Court
Ganesan @ Captain Ganesan vs The State Rep. By on 23 December, 2021
Author: R.Tharani
Bench: R. Tharani
Crl.RC(MD)No.95 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 23.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
Crl. RC(MD)No.95 of 2021
Ganesan @ Captain Ganesan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Palayamkottai Police Station (L&O),
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
(Crime No.1156 of 2016)
2.Chandra .. Respondents
Prayer : This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C.,
to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court, Tirunelveli in Crl.MP.No.4612/2018 dated 24.11.2020 and
set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Arunfaj
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC(MD)No.95 of 2021
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.MP.No. 4612/2018 dated 24.11.2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tirunelveli.
2. The case against the petitioner is that on 10.11.2016, the petitioner scolded the defacto complainant in unparliamentary words and threatened her with dire consequences. A case in Crime No.1156/2016 was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 342 and 506(2) IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act. The case was taken on file as CC.No.14/2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Tirunelveli to discharge him from the offences and that petition was dismissed by the trial Judge. Challenging the dismissal of the discharge petition, the petitioner is before this Court with this revision case.
3. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is the landlord. Since unknown persons came to the house of the defacto complainant, the petitioner locked the house. Due to this, the defacto complainant has foisted a false case. The relationship between the defacto complainant and the visitors was not 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC(MD)No.95 of 2021 explained by the prosecution. Only after two days of registration of FIR, the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Amended Act, 2015 was included in the case. The petitioner filed a quash petition before this Court and the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Amended Act, 2015 was deleted from the case. The petitioner used to participate in social works and used to file Public Interest Litigations relating to Tamirabarani River encroachment and cleaning and prayed the impugned order to be set aside.
4. On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Amended Act, 2015 was already deleted by this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No.13553/2017. Prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner has no locus standi to question the visitors of his tenant. The petitioner cannot scold the tenant in filthy language or threaten her and prayed for the petition to be dismissed.
5. It is seen that already the petitioner has approached this Court. The offence under the SC/ST (POA) Amended Act, 2015 was deleted by this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No.13553/2017. The first discharge petition in Crl.MP.No.155 of 2018 filed under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed by the Trial Court and Crl.OP(MD)No.16241/2018 to quash the proceedings was dismissed by this Court. It is seen that the petitioner has filed the present discharge petition for the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC(MD)No.95 of 2021 second time. A strong suspicion found against the petitioner by the Judicial Officer is enough to frame charges. The statement recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code by the Police and the documents filed in this case are sufficient enough to suspect a prima facie case against the petitioner. If a prima facie case is made out, the trial Court is at liberty to frame charges. In the above circumstances, there are no reasons sufficient enough to interfere with the orders of the trial Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
23.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mbi
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID – 19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC(MD)No.95 of 2021 To
1. The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station (L&O), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC(MD)No.95 of 2021 R.THARANI, J.
mbi Crl.RC(MD)No.95 of 2021 23.12.2021 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis