Madras High Court
Tamilmani vs Kannaiya on 6 July, 2012
Author: S.Tamilvanan
Bench: S.Tamilvanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06/07/2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.811 of 2011
and
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.812 of 2011
and M.P.No.1 and 1 of 2011
Tamilmani ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.811/2011
Raghavan Chettiar ... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.812/2011
Vs.
1. Kannaiya
2. The Superintendent of Police
Sivagangai. ... Respondents
Revisions preferred under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure
Code to call for records pertaining to the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2009
on the file of the Sessions Judge, Sivagangai and to quash the proceedings as
against the petitioner / respondents 11 and 12.
!For Petitioners ... Mr.M.Subash Babu
in both the Crl.R.C.
^For Respondents ... Mr.C.Christopher for R1
in both the Crl.R.C.
Mr.K.V.Rajarajan
Govt. Advocate(Crl.side) for R2
in both the Crl.R.C.
:COMMON ORDER
Both the criminal revisions have been preferred under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. The relief sought for in Crl.R.C.No.811 of 2011 is to call for the records pertaining to Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Sivagangai and quash the proceeding against the petitioner / A11. The similar relief is sought for in Crl.R.No.812 of 2011 by the petitioner / A12.
2. As per the impugned order, it is seen that the order passed in the Criminal Revision Petition in Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2009 has been challenged by way of filing two criminal revision cases by A11 and A12 and the petition was filed by the defacto-complainant / R1 before the Court below, as against the order of dismissal of his private complaint in Crl.M.P.No.3821 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, dated 27.03.2004. The complaint was filed against the respondents No.1 to 21 / accused Nos.1 to 19 therein for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 297, 420, 118, 427 and 506 (ii) r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (IV) (V) (VIII) (X) of SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. It is seen that the lands relating to the criminal case in T.S.No.154 is stated as house sites, allotted to the people of Adidravidar community of Kalanivasal and the lands in T.S.No.128 is the cremation ground of the said Adidravidar community people of Kalanivasal, which were originally endowed by Raja of Ramnad in favour of them. The Government also issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1623 of 1989, dated 28.09.1989 with a direction to the Revenue authorities to hand over the possession of the land by evicting such encroachers from such lands.
4. A copy of the G.O.Ms.No.1623 of 1989, dated 28.09.1989 reads that the land in S.No.128/1 and 154 in Kalanivasal village, Karaikudi Town were assigned as house site and mayanam poromboke for the use of Adidravidar community people, accordingly, reclassification order was also issued by the Government. In this G.O, nearly 15 earlier proceedings were referred to by the Revenue Department. The detailed G.O., in paragraph numbers 8 and 9 reads as follows :
"8. The Government have carefully examined the matter. The various Courts have held that the lands in T.S.No.128 and 154 of Karaikudi town is in the continuous possession of the Adi-Dravidars and that the land belongs to the Adi-Dravidars. In the circumstances stated above and in view of the Court's verdicts and the recommendations of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, the Government in relaxation of the ban imposed in G.O.Ms.No.3166, Revenue, dated 5.11.66, direct that the existing occupants of the land in Town Survey No.128 and 154 of Kalanivasal of Karaikudi town in Pasumpon Thevar Thirumagan District belonging to Adi-Dravidar community be issued house site pattas.
9. The Government also direct that the existing encroachments in S.No.128/1 of Kalanivasal area of Karaikudi town be evicted and the lands be reclassified as Mayanam poromboke for use of the Adi-Dravidars alone of the Kalanivasal area."
5. It is seen that copy of the G.O was marked to Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai and the District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai. Pursuant to the G.O, the concerned revenue authorities passed the order, dated 19.02.1996, wherein it is specifically stated that as per the order, dated 21.04.1989 passed in the writ petition in W.P.No.5530 of 1989 by this Court, the concerned authorities were directed to issue patta in respect of S.Nos.128 and 154 for Adi-Dravidar community people. It is seen that it is a consequential order, pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition by this Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners / A11 and A12 submitted that the complaint filed by the defacto-complainant is vague and no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 10 in the Criminal Revision Petition. It is further contended that the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, by the impugned order, dated 10.08.2011 has partly allowed the Criminal Revision Petition in favour of the respondents 1 to 7 and 8 to 10 and not against the respondents 11 to 14, which is a discriminatory stand taken by the Court below, hence not sustainable in law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the defacto-complainant / R1 submitted that based on the allegations made in the complaint and the materials available against the petitioners and the other respondents in the Criminal Revision Petition, the Court below passed the order, directing the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi to decide the complaint against the respondents 11 to 14 therein for the alleged offence under Section 3 (I) (IV) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, since no offence was made out against the other respondents therein. The Court below has directed the trial court to proceed against the petitioners and two others, who were arrayed as R11 to R14 and dispose the same, according to law and therefore, there is no illegality in the order and it cannot be said that it was a discriminatory stand taken by the learned Sessions Judge, since the alleged offence in the complaint against the petitioners herein is different from the other respondents therein.
8. On a perusal of the material papers available before this Court, it is clear that the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai has taken a view that the Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2009, so far as the same relates to the respondents 11 to 14 therein had to be allowed, since prima facie case has been made out against them, based on the supporting materials produced, to prosecute them under Section 3 (I) (IV) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
9. It is not in dispute that the respondents 1 to 7 are only Government officers and the allegation is that the G.O passed by the Government and the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition were not properly given effect to by the officials, however, there is no allegation against the said respondents 1 to 10, so as to attract the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, hence, the petitioners herein are not similarly placed persons.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has directed the trial court to proceed and dispose the matter as against the petitioners herein and the other two accused, according to law. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no discriminatory stand taken by the Court below in passing the impugned order. Only based on the complaint given by the defacto-complainant and the materials available on record, the Court below has passed the order. It cannot be said that the respondents 11 to 14 in Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2009 are also in the same footing as that of the respondents 1 to 10 to prosecute them under Section 3 (I) (IV) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
11. The defacto-complainant had filed a complaint that the revision petitioners have committed offence punishable under Section 3 (I) (IV) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by violating the order passed by this Court in the writ petition and the subsequent proceedings of the authorities.
12. Though the private complaint was dismissed by order, dated 27.02.2004 by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, by the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, considering the order passed by this Court, the G.O referred to above and various connected proceedings of the revenue authorities, has partly allowed the criminal revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2009, by order, dated 10.08.2011, whereby set aside a portion of the order, dated 27.02.2004 passed by the trial court and directed the Judicial Magistrate, in respect of the complaint given against the respondents 11 to 14 with regard to the alleged offence under Section 3 (I) (IV) of SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, according to law and the criminal revision petition filed against the other respondents therein was dismissed.
13. It is seen that the learned Sessions Judge has passed a detailed order, based on the materials placed before him and according to him, there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioners / A11 and A12 and have not make out any case of illegality or material violation in the impugned order passed by the Court below, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned order.
14. It is made clear that the learned Judicial Magistrate has to decide the matter, as directed by the learned Sessions Judge, according to law. The revision petitioners / A11 and A12 are also entitled to raise all their defence before the trial court.
15. On the aforesaid circumstances, as there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, I could find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, accordingly, both the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.
16. In the result, both the criminal revision petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances, learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi is directed to dispose the matter, as directed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, in the impugned order, after providing reasonable opportunity to both sides, according to law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
tsvn To
1.The Sessions Judge Sivagangai.
2.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Karaikudi.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.