Madras High Court
K.Gopinath vs State on 31 July, 2019
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.O.P.No.20360 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.No.20360 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.10471 of 2019
K.Gopinath .. Petitioner
vs.
State, Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Thirupur Police Station, (Rural)
Thirupur District. .. Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call
for the records and quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.30 of 2017 pending on
the file of Judicial Magistrate IV, Thirupur against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.Deepan Uday
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings pending in PRC.No.30 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate-IV, Thirupur. http://www.judis.nic.in 1/7 Crl.O.P.No.20360 of 2019
2.The respondent police originally registered an FIR based on the complaint given by this petitioner for an offence under Section 436 of IPC in Crime No.131 of 2016. In the course of investigation, the respondent police found that the petitioner himself has stage managed the entire incident and therefore made the petitioner as an accused along with three other persons. The final report was filed against the accused and three others for an offence under Section 4 of TNPPDL Act r/w Section 177 and 109 of IPC.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent police could not have investigated and filed a final report for an offence under Section 177 of IPC. The learned counsel submitted that the offence under Section 177 of IPC can only be prosecuted by way of filing a complaint and the procedure has been clearly given under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jeevanandham and others v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District and another reported in 2018 2 LW (Cri) 606.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in so far as the offence under Section 4 of TNPPDL Act is concerned, the http://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 Crl.O.P.No.20360 of 2019 prosecution has relied upon the confession of the co-accused and the statements given by LW11 and LW12 in the course of investigation. The learned counsel submitted that the statements of LW11 and LW12 are parroting version without any difference and the same cannot be relied upon for the purpose of proceeding further against the petitioner.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police submitted that in so far as the offence under Section 177 of IPC concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of this Court and therefore it may not be sustainable. However in so far as the offence under Section 4 of TNPPDL Act and Section 109 of IPC concerned, the learned counsel submitted that there are some materials against the petitioner and therefore whatever grounds have been raised by the petitioner can only be taken into consideration in the course of trial and this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot assess the statements and give any finding on the same.
6.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3/7 Crl.O.P.No.20360 of 2019
7.This is a case where the petitioner was the defacto complainant, who had said the law in motion and ultimately in the course of investigation, the respondent police have found that the petitioner had stage managed the entire incident for the purpose of strengthening his claim for police protection.
8.The final report has been filed for an offence under Section 4 of TNPPDL Act r/w Sections 177 and 109 of IPC. This Court has no hesitation in quashing the final report with regard to the offence under Section 177 IPC is concerned and the position of law has been made clear by this Court in Jeevanandham and others, referred supra. For an offence under Section 177 of IPC, the same can be prosecuted only by way of complaint in writing by a public servant and no Court can take cognizance otherwise. The Court below went wrong in taking cognizance of the final report for the offence under Section 177 of IPC.
9.In so far as the offence under Section 4 of TNPPDL Act and Section 109 of IPC, apart from the confession of the co-accused, there are two other witnesses namely, LW11 and LW12, who have made a statement to the investigating officer with regard to the overtact played by the petitioner. http://www.judis.nic.in 4/7 Crl.O.P.No.20360 of 2019 This Court cannot appreciate or deal with the statement made by LW11 and LW12 and give a finding on the same. It is something to be done in the course of trial and in the process of appreciation of evidence. It is now a well settled law that even a strong suspicion is enough to frame charges based on some materials.
10.In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the year 2017, at this stage.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall be represented by a counsel, who shall cross examine the witnesses on the same day, they are examined in Chief. The petitioner shall be present before the Court below at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of passing of the final judgement.
12.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings are quashed in so far as the offence under Section 177 of http://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 Crl.O.P.No.20360 of 2019 IPC is concerned. The proceedings shall proceed further in so far as the offence under Section 4 of TNPPDL Act and Section 109 of IPC. The Judicial Magistrate-IV, Thirupur shall immediately commit the case to the concerned Sessions Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The committal Court shall thereafter complete the case within a period of three months. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
31.07.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
vs
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate IV,
Thirupur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thirupur Police Station, (Rural)
Thirupur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6/7
Crl.O.P.No.20360 of 2019
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.,
vs
Crl.O.P.No.20360 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.10471 of 2019
31.07.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
7/7